Victims and Witnesses - College of...

Criminal justice

National report

Providing better support

Victims andwitnesses

TThhee AAuuddiitt CCoommmmiissssiioonn is an independent body responsible for ensuring thatpublic money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively, to achieve high�quality local and national services for the public. Our work covers localgovernment, housing, health and criminal justice services.

As an independent watchdog, we provide important information on the quality ofpublic services. As a driving force for improvement in those services, we providepractical recommendations and spread best practice. As an independentauditor, we monitor spending to ensure public services are good value for money.

For further information on the work of the Commission please contact:Steve Bundred, Audit Commission, 1 Vincent Square, London SW1P 2PN Tel: 020 7828 1212

Victims and witnesses | Contents 1

Preface 2

1 The problem and the policy response 4

2 Incident to report 11

3 Report to court 25

4 At court and afterwards 38

5 The way ahead 52

References 57

Glossary 59

Appendix 1:research methodology 60

© Audit Commission 2003

First published in November 2003 by the Audit Commission for local authorities and the National Health Service in England & Wales, 1 Vincent Square, London SW1P 2PN

Printed in the UK for the Audit Commission by Holbrooks Printers Ltd, Portsmouth

ISBN 186240 466 6

Photographs: Werner Bokelberg/Getty (cover), John Birdsall (p4), David Hughes/Imagestate(p11), Third Avenue (p25), Corbis (p38), Imagesource/Imagestate (p52).

Victims and witnesses | Preface2

PrefaceLast year, around one-quarter of the population of England and Wales were victims ofcrime (Ref. 1). For just under one-third of us, the impact of disorderly or antisocialbehaviour reduces our quality of life (Ref. 2). Yet many who experience theseproblems do not report them to anyone. Of those who do report crimes to the police,the majority will not see an offender brought to justice. And people who are on lowincomes and who are lone parents are at greater risk of being repeat victims.

Victims and witnesses also expect to be protected from future victimisation orintimidation by offenders or their acquaintances. Yet up to one in five victimsexperience some kind of intimidation and cases of perverting the course of justicehave increased six-fold since 1991.

As part of the drive to increase the number of offenders brought to justice andimprove public confidence in the criminal justice system (CJS), the Government hasmade a commitment to putting victims and witnesses at the heart of it (Ref. 3). It haspledged to provide them with the support and services they need, whether within theCJS itself or through other agencies. In realising this commitment, the governmentrecognises the need for greater co-ordination between the agencies within the CJSand beyond.

However, to date, no comprehensive evaluation has taken place of the servicescurrently provided to victims and witnesses of crime, disorderly or antisocialbehaviour. Victims and witnesses themselves have not been asked in depth abouttheir experiences of trying to access the help and support that they need, or abouttheir subsequent engagement with the agencies that provide this help and support.

To address this, the Audit Commission has looked not only at current service provisionto victims and witnesses, but also at what those on the receiving end of these servicesthink about them. It has talked directly to both victims and witnesses of crime,disorderly and antisocial behaviour,I as well as to practitioners and policymakers(Appendix 1). The Commission is well placed to conduct this research in the light of:

• its previous criminal justice work, including tracking the offender ‘pathway’through the system (Ref. 4);

• its experience of reviewing service provision that involves multiple agencies; and

• its remit to assure the value for money of a range of public services on behalf ofthe public.

Building on our previous approach published in Route to Justice (Ref. 4), this workalso takes a pathway approach, looking at what happens from when an incidentoccurs, through to the experiences of victims and witnesses at court and afterwards.It identifies six common themes around which improvements are needed along the

I MORI 2003, TPAS 2003.

whole pathway. These themes are as follows:

• agencies must understand the demand for services from victims and witnesses inorder to respond appropriately and effectively;

• there must be cultural change to recognise that meeting people’s individual needsis key to improving victim and witness satisfaction;

• clear accountability for performance and service quality is essential to driveimprovement;

• better use and communication of information is critical to keeping victims andwitnesses engaged;

• appropriate and timely support is critical to ensuring that victims and witnessesstay engaged; and

• agencies can achieve significant change by using local resources in a more co-ordinated way.

To help policy makers and practitioners involved in improving services to victims and witnesses, we have developed improvement products in addition to this report.These are:

• a self-assessment tool for practitioners in CJS agencies, local authorities and thevoluntary sector;

• facilitated workshops for partners wishing to use the self-assessment tool; and

• web-based products, including our report, research conducted for us by MORIand the self-assessment tool.

As we develop our audit and inspection methodologies we will also take account ofthe recommendations in the report.

Victims and witnesses | Preface 3

1

The problem and the policyresponseOnly a very small minority of all victims and witnesses

currently see an offender brought to justice. The

Government has responded to declining satisfaction

with, and confidence in, the CJS by publishing a national

strategy for victims and witnesses. However, much more

needs to be done to understand and respond to the

concerns of victims and witnesses, both at a national

and local level.

Victims and witnesses | The problem and the policy response4

1 The 2002/03 British Crime Survey (BCS) (Ref. 1) shows that the risk of becoming avictim of crime is 27 per cent for the general population, around the same level as in1981 and one-third lower than the risk in 1995. Many people are also affected bydisorderly or antisocial behaviour that may not be classified as a crime by policesystems, but nevertheless impacts negatively on their quality of life.

2 Less than half (44 per cent) of all crime is currently being reported to the police (Ref. 1). According to the BCS, of all the incidents that the police came to know aboutin 2002/03, approximately 68 per cent resulted in a crime being recorded.I Of the5,527,000 crimes recorded by the police in 2001/02, 23 per cent were detected,II with14 per cent resulting in a charge or summons (Ref. 5). This means that very fewvictims and witnesses actually see their case go to court – and of these cases, aroundone-third will still not result in an offender being brought to justice (Exhibit 1).

3 The majority of people will have some contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) atsome stage during their lifetime (Ref. 6). This breaks down as follows:III

• 52 per cent as victims of crime reported to the police;

• 8 per cent as suspects appearing in court;

• 22 per cent as a witness or spectator appearing in court; and

• 10 per cent as a juror.

Exhibit 1Approximate proportions of victims and witnessesdropping out of or being dropped by the systemOnly a minority of victims and witnesses see an offender brought to justice.

Victims and witnesses | The problem and the policy response 5

I All comparable BCS/police crimecategories (excludes crimes such as fraud,murder, drug�dealing, sexual offences,business thefts and crimes where victim is under 16).

II Suspect is charged, cautioned, offenceaccepted for consideration in court, or nofurther action taken.

III Note that categories overlap.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Source: Audit Commission

4 Public confidence in the CJS is generally low, with the police being rated most highly.Confidence in the police and prisons has declined over the past five years and for therest of the CJS there is a gently rising trend.

Exhibit 2Public perception of CJS agenciesOf all the CJS agencies, the public are most likely to think that the police

are doing a good or excellent job.

5 Over two-thirds of the public are ‘not at all’ or ‘not very confident’ that the CJS meetsthe needs of victims (Exhibit 3), and confidence is lower still among those who havebeen a victim of a crime that is reported to the police.

6 Many people’s experience as a victim or witness lowers their confidence in the CJS.These negative experiences will reduce not only how likely they are to engage with theCJS in future, but also the likelihood of their friends and families to do so. User-focusedorganisations recognise that people are far more likely to relay bad experiences widelythan they are good. Research for this study by MORI found that nearly two in fivewitnesses would not be prepared to be a witness again in similar circumstances (Ref. 8).


��

��

��

��

��

��

!""#!""$%��%��!&�% #��

'��

(��

)��

%��

!��

��Source: Crime in England and Wales 2001/02:Supplementary Volume (Ref. 7)

They didn’t do much when I had aburglary.

Non-reporting victim of crime

I’ve reported before but nothing wasdone.

Non-reporting victim of crime

Exhibit 3Public confidence in the CJSOver two-thirds of the public are not at all or not very confident that the

CJS meets the needs of victims.

7 Victims and witnesses can have an unsatisfactory experience of services at any pointalong a pathway, which potentially extends from the initial incident through to courtand beyond, with key milestones along the way (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 4Key milestones along the victim or witness pathwayThe failure of CJS agencies to maintain the engagement of victims or

witnesses at any point may result in fewer offenders being brought to

justice and less confidence in the system.


"��

��

��

��

��*��*��

$��

��

#��

'��

)��

(��

%��

!��

��

%��!&�%

%��%&�(

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� ��

��

+�� +�� ,�� ,*��

��Source: Audit Commission

Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003(Ref. 1)

8 How well the agencies within the CJS work individually and together directly affects howvictims and witnesses are treated at each stage of the pathway. A vast array ofindividuals, agencies, government departments and regulatory bodies may be involvedin specifying, delivering or regulating victim and witness care (Exhibit 5). The key CJSagencies are guided by service delivery targets and standards, such as the Victim’sCharter and National Standards of Witness Care (both adopted in 1996). Other types ofengagement with victims and witnesses are much more ad hoc and the evidencesuggests that people do not know that these exist or where to find them. Furthermore,research for this report found that the reality rarely matches the vision, and there is littlein the way of accountability if standards are not achieved or if service is poor.

Exhibit 5Service provision and regulation to victims and witnessesA vast array of individuals, agencies, departments, voluntary sector

organisations and regulatory bodies can be involved in victim and

witness care.


��&-��

.*��

��/�&��

��

0��-+�*�-��

1��

��2��/

��--��*��

2��

��/

3�-��**��

4**��

��-��/

�,��--��

�,��5��6��4**��

��

��

�7��

8��

4��

��3��&

*�-��

0��-��77��

��*��&��

.��

�4��7��-��

3�-��&��*�-��77��

��

�9��

,��&7��7�

��

��

��

:��

��

:��1�

�.9��

�;��,��4**��

�;,4�

�.7��-��*��

,**��

�<�-�4**��

�< ��+

�< +��

�< +��

��1��

< ��+Source: Audit Commission

I Police, CPS, Court Service, ProbationService, Prison Service.

9 Improving confidence and rebalancing the CJS in favour of victims are key themes inthe Government’s CJS White Paper, Justice for All, published July 2002 (Ref. 9). Atboth a national and local level, there have been a plethora of initiatives and reformsaimed at improving support for victims and witnesses. However, most initiatives haveaddressed specific issues in individual agencies such as the Direct Communicationwith Victims Project introduced by the CPS, (see paragraph 74, page 37) and not moresystemic weaknesses. In addition, there has been a lack of independent evaluation toestablish whether these initiatives and reforms are meeting the needs of victims andwitnesses or improving the efficiency of services on the ground.

10 Recently, the government published its national strategy for victims and witnesses(Ref. 3), along with a framework document for improving public satisfaction andconfidence in the CJS (Ref. 10). In April 2003, 42 non-statutory local criminal justiceboards (LCJBs) were created to strengthen joint working at a local level. Each LCJBcomprises the key CJS agency chief officers.

11 Among other responsibilities, LCJBs are charged with delivering a CJS national publicservice agreement (PSA) target to:improve the level of public confidence in the CJS, including increasing that of ethnicminority communities, and increasing year on year the satisfaction of victims andwitnesses, whilst respecting the rights of defendants.

12 This target is owned by the three government departments responsible for the CJS –the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Attorney General’sOffice. This is a helpful start in realigning the perspective of CJS agencies to put thevictim at the heart of the CJS. Below this overarching objective, however, agencytargets are concerned with ‘process’ rather than outcome and are not sufficientlyinformed by the user. A recent Audit Commission report on the use of targetsI

highlighted that in order for national targets to be effective, they must be supported bya robust performance management framework which aligns user expectations andservice priorities and, in doing so, motivates frontline staff.

13 The current lack of knowledge around the demand for services means that CJSagencies alone are unable to plan targets and resources effectively and tailor servicesto the needs of individuals and diverse groups. While the BCS provides a morecomprehensive picture about victims’ and witnesses’ experiences of the CJSII and isuseful for national monitoring, BCS data cannot be used to inform local improvement,as the sample sizes are too small to be significant at a CJS area level. Thus, thereneeds to be a closer relationship between the CJS and wider crime reductionpartners, such as local authorities and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships(CDRPS).

14 A Witness Satisfaction Survey (WSS) was conducted in 2000 and 2002, in order toobtain a broad indication of the satisfaction of witnesses, both generally and withspecific CJS agencies. The surveys questioned victim witnesses, prosecution and


I Targets in the Public Sector, AuditCommission September 2003.

II For example, satisfaction with speed ofresponse, manner of treatment, provisionof information and support offered.

defence witnesses and child witnesses. The important point to note is that the WSSonly surveys people attending court who are willing to participate and where a courtverdict has been reached. Therefore, it samples a small percentage of all victims andwitnesses who engage with the CJS, and an even smaller percentage of all peoplewho experience crime and disorder. As such, the survey misses a whole range ofpeople who drop out of the system along the way and the results do not reflect theviews of all victims and witnesses.

15 Around £13 billion is spent annually on the CJS. Apart from just over £29 million that iscurrently allocated to Victim Support,I no specific funding stream is attached to victimand witness care and no activity based costing exists in this area of service delivery.This absence of financial data, combined with the lack of a framework for managingperformance, means that accurately evaluating the cost effectiveness of currentservices is impossible.

16 The following chapters cover in more detail what happens to victims and witnesses ofcrime and disorder as they travel along the pathway. They explore the reasons fordissatisfaction and an unwillingness to engage with the agencies that are responsiblefor addressing problem behaviour. Chapter 2 looks at the reasons why victims andwitnesses are reluctant to report incidents and addresses the need for a betterapproach to responding to disorderly and antisocial behaviour.


I Victim Support is a national charitycomprising a network of local schemesacross England and Wales. Trained staffand volunteers work to deliver theorganisation’s two main aims: (1) toprovide support and assistance toindividual victims, witnesses, their familiesand friends; and (2) to raise publicawareness and recognition of the effectsof crime and to promote victims’ rights.

2

Incident to reportLess than one-half of all victims of crime report the

incident to the police. Around one-third of people

experience disorderly or antisocial behaviour that makes

them feel unsafe or reduces their quality of life. Police

and local authorities need to understand the demand

from victims and witnesses for help, support and

protection and be better geared to meet demand and

respond appropriately.

Victims and witnesses | Incident to report 11

17 The previous chapter set out the environment and context of why improvement invictim and witness care is an issue for government. It looked at some of the stepsbeing taken to address problems within the system. This chapter looks at whathappens after an incident takes place and how this, and other factors, impact upon the likelihood of victims and witnesses reporting incidents to the authorities.

18 MORI research for this study (Ref. 8) found that 33 per cent of victims do not reportincidents that they perceive to be a crime to the police. The majority do not do sobecause they believe that the police will not take action (Table 1).

Table 1Non-reporting of crimeThirty-three per cent of victims and 61 per cent of witnesses do not report

to the police.

Victims

Reporting 67%

Not reporting 33% Top five reasons of victims and witnesses

Did not think the police would do anything

Incident was too trivial

I could not be bothered

It was a private matter

It happens ‘all the time’

Witnesses

Reporting 38%

Not reporting 61% Top five reasons of victims and witnesses

Someone else reported or the police were present

Did not want to get involved

Did not think the police would do anything

It happens ‘all the time’

I could not be bothered

SSoouurrccee:: MORI (Ref. 8)

19 Unreported incidents – whether they are crimes or not – allow patterns of adversebehaviour to remain unchecked, creating a potential risk of repeat offending withconsequential repeat victimisation. The task facing the police, local authorities and otheragencies providing support to local communities is to minimise the factors that inhibitpeople from reporting incidents. This chapter explores the key issues that affect thewillingness of victims and witnesses to begin engaging with the authorities by looking at:

• understanding the prevalence of crime and disorder;

• victims’ and witnesses’ expectations of authorities; and

• managing demand.

Victims and witnesses | Incident to report12

Understanding the prevalence of crimeand disorder

20 Results from the MORI omnibusI show that 23 per cent of respondents thought thatthey had been a victim of crime within the last year, comparable to the figure of 27 per cent given in the 2002/03 BCS (Ref. 1). The MORI research also found that 23 per cent of respondents said that they had personally witnessed a crime during thesame period. However, in many cases the incidents they refer to are ones that wouldnot count as a ‘crime’ under the National Crime Recording Standard (Exhibit 6). Thishighlights a significant difference in perception between the public and the CJS.

Exhibit 6Prevalence of crime and disorder (self-reported)Damage/vandalism is the most common type of incident experienced by

victims and witnesses.

21 It is important to note that these figures are based on personal perceptions of what acrime is. Assessing the prevalence of disorder is more difficult still, due to the absenceof formal, consistent definitions and counting rules used by both CJS agencies andcommunity safety partners, such as local authorities. Research by the Office of theDeputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (Ref. 11) found that an unclear and inconsistentdefinition of antisocial behaviour was a key barrier to agencies devising effectiveinterventions to deal with such behaviour. Although Crime and Disorder ReductionPartnerships (CDRPs) frequently use the terms ‘disorder’, ‘youth nuisance’ and‘antisocial behaviour’ in crime and disorder strategies, there is sometimes a lack ofconsensus between members about what behaviours these terms refer to.III Theseissues of common definition were examined in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate ofConstabulary (HMIC) thematic inspection report Calling Time on Crime (Ref. 14).


.�-��&��-

<��-&��-��

0��

=�*��*�-��

1��

9��

��

4��-�

8��

0��-�

�� !� %� (� )� '� #� �� $� "� !�� !!�

Source: MORI (Ref. 8)II

I Base: 1759 males and females aged 15+ interviewed in 198 sample pointsacross England and Wales between 5th and 10th June 2003 (Ref. 8).

II Percentages do not add up to 23 as somevictims and witnesses may fall into morethan one category.

III The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Ref. 12) defines antisocial behaviour asacting in a manner that caused or was likelyto cause harassment, alarm or distress toone or more persons not of the samehousehold. This definition is being updatedin the Antisocial Behaviour Bill (Ref. 13) tobehaviour by a person which causes or islikely to cause harassment, alarm, distressto one or more other persons not of thesame household as the person.

22 Antisocial behaviour is perceived differently in different places. These differences aredue to the context in which such behaviour takes place, the location, the tolerancelevels of the local community and people’s expectations about quality of life in thearea. For around one-third of people, antisocial behaviour (such as harassment,vandalism, littering, or teenagers ‘hanging around’) makes them feel unsafe andreduces their quality of life (Ref. 2). This is particularly true for people who live indeprived areas, who are at greater risk of becoming crime victims and can be morereluctant to report such incidents.

23 The statutory CDRP is a good forum for police and local authorities to understand theprevalence of both crime and disorder. To start to identify the overall amount andnature of reported antisocial behaviour in England and Wales, the AntisocialBehaviour Unit in the Home Office recently held a one-day count of reports of acts ofantisocial behaviour. They segmented behaviours into four types:

• misuse of public space;

• disregard for community/personal wellbeing;

• acts directed at people; and

• environmental damage.

CDRPs now need to build on this to develop a fuller understanding of problems intheir local areas.

24 Victims and witnesses have individual expectations of the authorities to deal withcriminal, disorderly and antisocial behaviour. These expectations, and whether or notvictims and witnesses feel that they will be met, are a key factor in deciding to reportincidents.

Victims’ and witnesses’ expectations ofauthorities

25 CJS agencies and local authorities need to respond in a way that meets more closelyvictims’ and witnesses’ expectations. Where the capacity or willingness of theauthorities to respond is low, people are less likely to report problems. This can meanthat minor incidents escalate into bigger problems, which are more resource intensiveto resolve (Case study 1).

26 To win the trust and confidence of victims and witnesses, the criminal justice agencies– and the police in particular – must respond appropriately to each report of anincident. Research has shown that the public has either a negative, or at best, a neutralview about whether local public services respond appropriately or ‘keep theirpromises’ (Ref. 15). Police and local authorities must recognise that reporting is thecrucial first stage where victim and witness expectations are set, and they must worktogether to develop a common understanding of the problems and potential solutions.

Supporting victims and witnesses | Incident to report14

Case study 1Leslie’s storyLeslie regularly witnesses antisocial behaviour on the estate where he lives and isabused and threatened by local youths when he leaves his home. He is unwilling toreport what he sees because he does not trust the police or the council’s housingservice to support him. Leslie feels that the police and the council ‘tolerate’ antisocialbehaviour and do not have a ‘serious determination or will’ to investigate theincidents. Local residents recently petitioned the council to take action against theworst offenders, but Leslie says the council did nothing, and, following intimidation bysome of the offenders, the residents withdrew their petition. Leslie is now highlyreluctant to report information to the police because he fears reprisals by theperpetrators and feels isolated and unsupported.

SSoouurrccee:: Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) (Ref. 16)

27 A snapshot survey of CDRPs found that only 33 per cent currently have a strategy forvictims and witnesses and 39 per cent have a champion for victim and witnessissues.I While they may appreciate where the weaknesses in the current system lie(Box B), many CDRPs are underestimating the role that they could play in improvingservices to victims and witnesses, and are not yet working strategically with LCJBs todeliver this.

Box BCDRPs’ concerns about services to victims and witnessesCDRPs’ top concern about service provision to victims and witnesses is a

lack of communication and information.

CDRPs were asked to list their top three concerns about the provision of services tovictims and witnesses in their area. Sixty-four CDRPs responded to the survey, withthe following themes emerging:

Number PercentageTheme CDRPs CDRPs

Communication and information 33 52%

Availability of support for victims and witnesses 27 42%

Intimidation of victims and witnesses 15 23%

Repeat victimisation 8 13%

Resources for victim and witness care 8 13%

Facilities for victims and witnesses 6 9%

Antisocial behaviour 3 5%

SSoouurrccee:: Audit Commission

Supporting victims and witnesses | Incident to report 15

I Of the 64 CDRPs that responded to theAudit Commission survey.

28 MORI research for this project identified three broad types of attitudes towards theCJS. These attitudes provide a first step in understanding what makes some victimsand witnesses engage but not others (Exhibit 7). While the model looks specifically atthe CJS, it could equally apply to engagement with local authority services dealingwith disorder and antisocial behaviour.

Exhibit 7Likelihood of engagement with the CJSVictims and witnesses can be categorised according to their attitudes

towards the CJS.

29 Different types of victims and witnesses expect different types of responses. Forexample, the lone elderly person who experiences regular littering of their front gardenby local youths may feel more victimised than a young man robbed on a singleoccasion for his mobile phone. Although only the latter is a crime and therefore fits thecriteria for a police response, both of these people would expect that if they reportedthe matter to the police, action of some kind would be taken. The gap betweenexpectation and actual response determines how satisfied a person will be and thiscan change over time (Box C).


��

��/��>? <��7��7��*��? <��*��7��? <��77��/? 1��-&��*��-? 4��-��7��

��

��/��>? 1��/��*��-��? <��/��*&��7��-��

��**��? <��7��*��? 1��-&��*�-��

��-&��? :��7��--��? <��7��7��

��

��/��>? <��*��

�7��? <��*��-? ��-��7��? <��@�7��-��7��*

��-�

��

Source: MORI (Ref. 8)

Box CCategorising expectations by time


30 Victims and witnesses also expect to be protected from future victimisation orintimidation by offenders or their acquaintances. The likelihood of such intimidation orrepeat victimisation is a key factor in their decision to report crime and disorder.Reducing the risk and fear of such intimidation is therefore crucial to ensuring thatvictims and witnesses stay engaged with the system.

31 Research over the past decade has shown that intimidation occurs in just under 10 per cent of all reported crime and 20 per cent of unreported crime (Ref. 17). Inmany more cases, victims and witnesses will fear such intimidation. Cases ofperverting the course of justice have increased six-fold since 1991 and more thandoubled since 1997/98 (Exhibit 8, overleaf). This category of crime includesthreatening witnesses and suggests a rising trend in this kind of intimidation.

32 The potential for people to be repeatedly victimised is greatest when adequatesupport and protection are not easily available or sustainable. Recent research showsthat people who are on low incomes and/or who are lone parents are at a greater riskof being repeat victims (Ref. 18). Some respondents to the TPAS survey (Ref. 16) saidthat visits by uniformed police and council officials can often be highly visible and addto their problems (Case study 2, overleaf).


Short term expectation

Outcomes:

• Victim is visibly helpedor protected.

• The offender’s actionsare constrained.

• Helpful information isgiven to the victim, forexample, a crimenumber and sources offurther assistance.

Medium term expectation

Outcomes:

• What happens next isexplained clearly.

• The incident isinvestigated.

• The offender isidentified.

• The offender ispunished.

• The victim or witnessreceives support.

Long term expectation

Outcomes:

• The offender is keptaway from thevictim/witness.

• The offender isrehabilitated.

• The offender stopsoffending.

Exhibit 8Incidence of perverting the course of justice 1991-2002/03A six fold increase in incidence of perverting the course of justice suggests

a rise in the intimidation of witnesses.

Case study 2Philip’s storyPhilip lives on a housing estate and will not make statements about the crime anddisorder he has witnessed because he perceives that there is a high risk that theperpetrators will retaliate. His home has been burgled twice, each incident witnessedby a neighbour who also refused to make statements. Another neighbour reportedwitnessing a fight to the police; a police car arrived and parked outside her house andthe next day her front fence was ‘smashed to pieces’. So far, Philip’s own lossesthrough burglary have cost him £5,000. He describes the estate where he lives ashaving a climate that allows the ‘offenders on the streets to continue doing whatever itis they wish to do’, and says that behaviour will continue unchecked until localresidents regain trust in the police and in other local agencies.

SSoouurrccee:: TPAS (Ref. 15)

33 Fieldwork suggested that identification of repeat victimisation is an area in need ofimprovement (Case study 3). For example, Race Equality Council (REC) officersreported that the better reporting of hate crime has resulted in greater numbers ofindividual reports of hate crime, rather than better identification of linked incidents.Recording incidents in this way may not reflect the true nature of repeat victimisation,making it more difficult to provide an appropriate response.


9��-��**��>�7��*� ��

�

%A��

)A��

#A��

$A��

!�A��

!%A��

!""! !""' !""# !""� !""�&"$

!""$&""

!"""&%��

%��&�!

%��!&�%

%��%&�(

!""$&""Source: Crime in England & Wales

2002-03 (Ref. 1)I

They [the police] were on about havingprotection for us but they just didn’twant to listen no matter how manytimes I rang them.

Victim of serious crime

I Two sets of data for 1998/99 reflect theimpact of a change in the counting rulesthat came into effect 1 April 1998.

Case study 3Reading RECReading REC is working with Thames Valley Police’s local Community and RaceRelations Officer (CARRO) to improve understanding of race crime. The organisation’swork in analysing reports of potential racist incidents to the police and the LocalEducation Authority has identified that:

• antisocial behaviour is not recorded by the police and so potential racialharassment may not be recognised sufficiently early to prevent repeatvictimisation;

• current methods record incidents separately, failing to immediately identifypotential repeat victimisation (for example, multiple instances of racial abuse byone offender were not always connected); and

• the local CARRO had an effective presence in the community, helping to raiseconfidence and reporting rates.


34 Deciding to report incidents can be a major step for victims and witnesses. Once thisdecision has been made, the agencies involved need to respond to such demandappropriately and recognise that quality of service at the first point of contact is crucial.

Managing demand35 A member of the public can currently report problem behaviour in a number of ways

(Exhibit 9, overleaf). Feedback from victims and witnessesI shows that the ease ordifficulty of reporting crime greatly influences perceptions of the adequacy of theeventual response. Victims and witnesses strongly criticised the following commondifficulties in accessing help:

• being connected by telephone to the wrong person;

• being asked to leave a message with a person or on an answering machine;

• leaving messages that remain unanswered; and

• impersonal attitudes of central switchboard or call centre staff.

36 There is a lack of useful information about how people report incidents. For example,there are no meaningful national data that describe incident type, reporting method orvictim/witness demographics. The absence of data makes any prediction about servicelevels or reporting preferences impossible – a major barrier to proper management ofdemand. Useful data about reporting preferences do exist for some crimes. Forexample, Metropolitan Police dataII show that, in one monitoring period, 62 per cent ofvictims of domestic violence reported by 999 call compared with 17 per cent in personat a police station. The comparable figures for victims of hate crime were 37 per centand 27 per cent. While some forces do record data about reporting preferences, thistends to be piecemeal and is not generally used to inform response planning.


I TPAS survey (Ref. 15).

II Source: Performance and InformationBureau, Metropolitan Police Service.

Exhibit 9Examples of reporting channels Most victims and witnesses will report problem behaviour directly to

the police.

37 As a highly visible, accessible and 24-hour public service, the police receive mostreports of disorder and antisocial behaviour, even though they may not be the best-placed or most appropriate agency to respond. The challenge for localauthorities is to configure resources to enable them to respond to those incidents that require immediate, as well as long-term, solutions and that may be provided bymore than one service provider. Victims and witnesses then need to be signposted to the most appropriate reporting channel (Exhibit 10).

38 Other agencies, notably local authorities, have statutory duties with regard to crime,disorder and antisocial behaviour. A survey of 65 local authorities conducted for thisstudy (Appendix 1) found:

• a marked difference in attitude between local authority and police responses toreports or complaints of antisocial behaviour, meaning that local authorityresponse times are longer with less immediacy;

• that the few local government performance indicators that do exist fail to matchpolice response targets; and

• that there is little clear accountability for action over referred reports of antisocialbehaviour.

Local authorities therefore need to address responsiveness and tailor services moreclosely to the seriousness of the incident in order to deliver more satisfactory servicesin this area.


��

�� 4��7��*�-��

��-

"""��;��@

-��7��

��

+��7��7��

-��

=��7��**��

��

,��@��7

��7

0��

��

��Source: Audit Commission

Exhibit 10Alternative sources of reporting and referral for victimsand witnessesOther agencies or individuals may be better placed to respond quickly and

appropriately, and will divert some demand away from the police.

39 The police National Intelligence Model (NIM) uses local intelligence to understand allpolicing issues in an area, including criminality, disorder and antisocial behaviour. Thisanalysis allows managers to make informed decisions about what their strategicpriorities are, to manage identified risks and allocate resources effectively where theycan make most impact.I However, local authority partners do not currently have aframework in place to allow them to benefit from such an approach, especially inrelation to tasking and responding to non-crime problem behaviour.


� ��

� ��

!��

" ��

��

#��$ ��

% �

�!�

� �� &��'( ��( � �� ( ��( ��)��*+� ��,��( ��

!� ��

- ��


I Source: www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/national_intelligence_model/national_intelligence_model_main.asp

40 Some areas have started to design services that are more tailored to the convenienceof users (Case study 4). Key to being able to do this is an understanding of thedemand profile facing the agencies, and from this being able to plan the resourcesnecessary to deal with this demand, from the initial communication and response,through to investigation and resolution. This approach also creates the possibility ofsharing call centres that are already in use by one agency, thereby streamliningreporting channels.

Case study 4Atlas Court Integrated Call CentrePublic communication with the police is seen as an end-to-end process thatmust be managed throughout.

A new integrated multi-media contact centre at Atlas Court aims to improve SouthYorkshire Police’s service to the public. Atlas Court will consolidate the police’s areacommunications rooms, crime recording, PNCI and PHOENIXII operations in onelocation. Call handlers will provide public services beyond simple query handling, forexample, crime prevention advice and local intelligence gathering. A key aim is to dealwith as many calls as possible at first contact. Call handlers will be supported by adatabase of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to ensure that callers are givenaccurate and consistent information and are referred to the correct people or agency.

A ‘systems approach’ to managing calls makes customer interaction an end-to-endprocess where satisfaction is influenced at each stage. This approach means thatcommitments made to callers will be treated as contracts to be fulfilled – for example,all call-backs should be made at the agreed time. Call handlers will have access toinformation to identify, for example, if a caller is a vulnerable person or repeat victim.After public consultation, the centre includes more modern communication methodsto meet specific needs (for example, text messaging for the deaf community).


41 Responding to the challenges of managing demand requires an assessment of theexisting and additional resources that can be used to improve victim and witnesscare. In many areas a variety of funding streams exist under the umbrella of AreaBased Initiatives (ABIs), which are co-ordinated by the Regional Co-ordination Unit inthe ODPM.III Many ABIs support crime reduction outcomes that are highly compatiblewith better victim and witness care. Access to projects and available ABI funding ismore achievable with good co-ordination between LCJBs, CDRPs, Drug ActionTeams (DATs) and youth offending teams (Yots). A combined effort using the capacityof LCJBs and CDRPs to target and bid for funding could potentially make a differenceto the resourcing of victim and witness initiatives at local level.

42 The next chapter follows the progress of victims and witnesses who do decide toreport incidents. It looks at the factors that impact on their decision to engage ordisengage with the process up to the case being heard at court.


I Police National Computer.

II Police Home Office Extended Name Index.

III Via www.government�offices.gov.uk


Key messages and recommendations1. Victims and witnesses do not differentiate between crime, disorder andantisocial behaviour – but CJS agencies and local authorities do.

Recommendations• Local CJS and community safety partners should:

– ensure that recording systems use the agreed definitions and are capable ofcollating and sharing data; and

– use these data and other local information to understand the nature, prevalenceand patterns of crime and disorder affecting communities and individuals.

2. Many CDRPs are underestimating the role that they could play in improvingservices to victims and witnesses, and are not yet working strategically withLCJBs to deliver this.

Recommendations• Local authority chief executives should use their duties under the Crime and Disorder

Act 1998, to co-ordinate activities relating to victims and witnesses with LCJBs, toprovide better read-across between civil and criminal cases and greater access tolocal information.

3. Expectations and needs differ between and within neighbourhoods,communities and individuals. Failure by the police and other authorities torespond appropriately may cause an escalation of the problem behaviour,damage community confidence and leave the door open for intimidation andrepeat victimisation.

Recommendations• In order to secure engagement, agencies need to understand and manage

victims’ and witnesses’ individual expectations, from initial response through tolonger-term outcomes.

• LCJBs, CDRPs and voluntary organisations need to share information to identify‘root causes’ of intimidation and repeat victimisation.

• All agencies, including voluntary sector partners, should develop co-ordinated responses to intimidation and repeat victimisation, usingorganisations with local credibility to provide targeted support.

4. The police and local authorities lack comprehensive information about victims and witnesses and about how demand is currently being met. As such,they cannot accurately target resources in the most efficient way.

Recommendations• To understand demand and respond appropriately, police and local authorities

should develop a framework for gathering information about victims andwitnesses, their reporting behaviour and preferences.


• Police and local authorities should develop a co-ordinated approach todealing with calls and reports to ensure that resources are best directed tomeet victims’ and witnesses’ needs.

• Local partnerships, for example, LCJBs and CDRPs should:

– involve local communities in designing services for victims andwitnesses, using common standards and performance targets;

– improve inter-agency co-ordination in order to obtain better value fromavailable resources;

– borrow from the principles of the police NIM to analyse, task andrespond to antisocial behaviour in a targeted, consistent way; and

– monitor performance and develop good practice.

3

Report to courtOnce victims and witnesses report a crime to the police,

they face a potentially long and complicated pathway that

can cause them a wide range of practical and emotional

difficulties. The CJS agencies and voluntary sector need

to work together to meet the need for individual support

and information and to ensure that victims and witnesses

feel able to attend court.

Victims and witnesses | Report to court 25

43 The previous chapter reported on the barriers that victims and witnesses face whendeciding whether to report crime and disorder to the authorities. It also covered someof the difficulties that the agencies involved have in responding to the expectations ofvictims and witnesses. The report from here concentrates mainly on what happens topeople who have been a victim or a witness of a recorded crime, from the initial policeresponse through to court and afterwards. It is important to note that, either throughchoice or for other reasons, millions (Ref. 1) of people every year disengage with thesystem before any criminal investigation takes place.

44 Victims and witnesses have very different experiences and circumstances at the pointat which they come into contact with the CJS. This means that their need for support,advice and guidance and their expectations about court differ greatly too. MORIresearch has identified four types of victims/witnesses, sitting along a ‘continuum’ ofexpectations and needs (Exhibit 11).

Exhibit 11Characteristics of different types of victims and witnessesVictims and witnesses can range from the very vulnerable to the confident.

Victims and witnesses | Report to court26

Source: MORI (Ref. 8)

�!+�.� ��

/0�.� ��

��/��>? 1��-&��*��-��

��-? <��*�-��

��/��/? 8��77��/��

��? 1��**��

��? ��? ��

��/��>? <��7��*��? ��@-��A��*@��*��? <��/7��*�-�

��/�*��*�-��*��

? <��**�� !��

��/��>? 1��-��*��7��-? <��7��*��? 1��7��-��? 1��*��? B��**��? <��7��*��? ;��77�� "�� #��

��/��>? 1��-&��*�-��-? <��*�-��&

��? <��7��77��/? ��$��? ��

��

45 The key factors that help to determine these types of victims and witnesses include:

• the perceived severity of the incident;

• prior or potential exposure to intimidation;

• previous experience of court;

• the type and level of information received;

• the number of delays experienced as the case progresses; and

• the type and level of support received from agencies, family and friends.

46 It is important that these different types of victims and witnesses are recognised sothat agencies can provide a more targeted approach to the delivery of guidance,advice and support services prior to and at court. Currently, however, this targetingrarely happens, with more vulnerable and nervous victims and witnesses not alwaysgetting the level of help that they need.

47 This chapter explores what currently happens when a victim or witness reports acrime to the police and the subsequent investigation of this crime. It identifies the keyconsiderations for Government and the CJS agencies involved in improving thisexperience by looking at:

• the initial police response;

• support to victims and witnesses; and

• information and communication.

The chapter goes on to suggest ways to address the problem issues, outliningnational initiatives and local good practice that contribute to improvement.

Initial police response48 Evidence suggests that the first contact that a victim or witness has with the CJS is

instrumental in shaping their perceptions of future service. People’s experience ofreporting crime and the initial response they receive will, therefore, impact not only ontheir satisfaction with the police, but also on their confidence that the CJS as a wholewill deal professionally with their case and secure the best outcome.

49 As the first CJS agency to have contact with victims and witnesses following a reportof crime, the police has an important role to play in keeping them engaged.I In an idealworld, the police would be able to investigate thoroughly every report of crime. Thepublic, including victims of crime, acknowledge that this is not always possible and,indeed, that this would be a poor use of resources in many instances. But even incases where police and victim agree that there is little likelihood of the perpetratorbeing found, those affected by the crime still need to feel that there was a point tothem making the report and that their experience has been taken seriously.

Supporting victims and witnesses | Report to court 27

It needs to be remembered that at theheart of the process is the issue of thetreatment of the victim…the bestevidence can only be gleaned from thebest treated victim…our findings revealthat there is much that can be done bythe police and Crown ProsecutionService (CPS), sometimes inconjunction with other organisations,to enhance the treatment of victimsand the collection and presentation of evidence.

HM Chief Inspector of CPS, HMChief Inspector of Constabulary(Ref. 19)

I The 1996 Victim’s Charter sets out whathappens after an offence has beenreported to the police and the standards ofservice that should be expected.

50 Data show that the overall satisfaction of victims with the police handling of their caseis substantially higher when they have had face-to-face contact (Table 2). Satisfactionwith the level of information provided by the police is far lower than the other factorsrelating to quality of service.

Table 2Victim satisfaction with police handling of matterI

Respondents saying ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfiedWhite Asian Black All victims

All contact 59% 60% 47% 58%

Face-to-face contact 62%

No face-to-face contact 50%

Didn’t have to wait/waited a reasonable amount of time for police 71%

Police showed enough interest 63%

Police put enough effort into dealing with the matter 57%

Victims kept well informed by the police 31%

SSoouurrccee:: Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (Ref. 7)

51 From the moment a member of the public makes a witness statement, they are enteringinto an agreement that they will give evidence in court if required. However, evidencefrom fieldwork suggests that not all police officers make this clear to victims andwitnesses at the time that a statement is taken. While the decision to prosecute is that ofthe CPS, cases are unlikely to proceed unless the co-operation of key witnesses hasbeen secured from the outset.

52 Research by MORI (Ref. 8) found that initial contact with the police was a highlypositive experience for many victims and witnesses, with officers generally perceivedas helpful and supportive. This was supported by the quantitative findings, with 70 per cent of victims and 69 per cent of witnesses reporting that they were welltreated by the police.

I felt a bit like he [the PC] actually cares, he’s not just doing it ‘cos it’s his job. I know hewas, but at the time it was a bit more like they were actually keeping an eye on us,checking we were alright.

Victim of crime – post-case interview

53 Satisfaction tended to be more marked for victims of ‘serious’II crime, who oftenexperienced extreme sensitivity and support from the police.

I think they’re trying really hard. I was treated very, very respectfully and I wassurprised, really surprised…she [the police officer] works out of a domestic violenceunit and she was my contact, I could call her any time.


Supporting victims and witnesses | Report to court28

I Of incidents that the police came to knowabout.

II There is no absolute definition of ‘seriouscrime’, but section 116 of the Police andCriminal Evidence Act 1984 (Ref. 20)identifies some ‘serious arrestableoffences’, including murder, rape andkidnapping.

54 By contrast, victims and witnesses of more ‘minor’ – but high-volume – crime wereless likely to feel that they received the service they expected or deserved, leavingthem feeling bitter about reporting the incident and about the CJS more generally(Case study 5). There is a lack of a ‘customer service’ ethos in relation to attitudestowards victims and witnesses, who are often thought of in terms of whether they are‘useful’ or a ‘burden’.

Case study 5Incident handlingThe victim reported a stolen scooter to police and went to the police station to givecontact details – no statement was taken at the time. After the police recorded thedetails incorrectly, the victim was called by police on her home phone rather thanmobile to say that the scooter had been found. On hearing the message she called thepolice and was informed that, having been left where it was found by officers (in anarea with high levels of crime), the scooter had been re-stolen.

The police called the next day to say that they had arrested the offenders but that thescooter had been involved in an accident and taken to a pound, requiring the victim topay to have it released. When the police later called at her house, the victim felt thatthey were more interested in having caught the offender than in taking a statement ordiscussing compensation.


55 Having reported a crime to the police and provided a statement, victims’ andwitnesses’ needs for additional support to cope with the aftermath of the crime vary,and they may not know where to turn. Current provision of support to victims andwitnesses is patchy, varying from area to area.

Support to victims and witnesses56 Research shows that while satisfaction with initial police response is high, satisfaction

then declines as the case progresses (Ref. 21). Whether support is available from thevoluntary sector or not, the police still have a key role in supporting victims andwitnesses, offering reassurance and practical help. As well as being important to thevictims and witnesses, it helps to ensure that they stay engaged, thereby assisting theinvestigation and building the strongest possible case against the offender.

57 In a small minority of cases, more robust and ongoing support for victims may beprovided by specialist police units or by other parts of the voluntary sector (Exhibit 12, overleaf). Organisations such as Leicester Witness Cocoon (LWC) (Case study 6, overleaf), who provide support for victims and witnesses of highervolume, more minor crime and disorder, are relatively rare.


They were just so rude to me and didn’tgive a damn. I think that because Isound so young on the phone theydidn’t take me seriously.

Female witness, pre-case interview

It was like, ‘case is coming up, are youokay?’…he was always there, healways turned up on time. And they[police officers] would come roundoccasionally and sort of have anotherchat to you and things like that.

Victim of crime, post-case interview

Exhibit 12Examples of specialist supportVictims of serious crime have access to more specialist support from local

public services, the CJS and the voluntary sector.

Case study 6Leicester Witness Cocoon (LWC)Staffed by volunteers who are trained in supporting and advising witnesses, LWCworks with local communities. LWC operates in partnership with the local Tenants’and Residents’ Associations, the police, local authority and social landlords, as wellas Victim Support/Witness Service and the Leicestershire Mediation Service. LWCprovides support to witnesses, helping them to cope with the effects of crime andantisocial behaviour. Volunteers are supported by a small team of paid staff, whooversee work to ensure that witnesses are valued and their decisions supported. LWCvolunteers enable witnesses to report and discuss crime and antisocial behaviour. Byproviding a confidential, reassuring environment, witnesses feel more willing to shareboth concerns and information. LWC advocates on behalf of witnesses, bycommunicating with, or accompanying them during contact with the police, council orother organisations. The average length of time for support is between 9 and 12months, during which time there are an average of 147 contacts with, or on behalf of,the witness, and costing just over £40 per week per witness.



�� *�-�� **��

3��-7�>

��-�

�*

�� **��

3� ��-7�> 3� ��

-7�

>��

��-� �*��

��-�

�*�� -�

��-�

��

��

�

:�� &�.9�

0��

�� --�� *�� 2��


58 According to the International Crime Victimisation Survey 2000 (Ref. 22), 18 per centof victims of burglary and contact crime in England and WalesI were supported by aspecialist agency. A third of respondents stated that whilst they did not receive help,they would have appreciated such help. Where support is offered to victims of crimein the aftermath of a report to the police, this role is undertaken in the majority of casesby the national charity, Victim Support. This happens by the police referring victims tothe charity through local crime reporting procedures. Among all incidents recorded bythe police and reported to the 1998 BCS, around 29 per cent of victims rememberedhaving some form of contact with Victim Support (Ref. 23) and 26 per cent of thosepeople were subsequently visited by a volunteer.

59 Victim Support received almost 1.2 million referrals in 2000/01, 97 per cent of whichwere from the police. Referral rates vary depending on the area and on the nature ofthe crime; for example, police referrals for victims of burglary in their dwelling rangedfrom just over 20 per cent in one force to just under 100 per cent in another (Ref. 24).

60 Resources do not allow Victim Support, or any other specialist agency, to ‘proactively’seek out and offer help to all victims of crime, let alone witnesses. Understandably,those crimes or victims where the greatest need has been identified take priority.

61 The 1998 BCS found that 74 per cent of general respondents and 79 per cent ofvictims had heard of Victim Support. However, only 10 per cent of crime victimsrecalled any form of contact.II Those victims who had direct contact with VictimSupport volunteers tended to rate it highly, particularly those that describedthemselves as ‘very much affected’ by the crime and those who said they had wanted‘someone to talk to’ (Ref. 23). Exhibit 13, overleaf, shows that face-to-face contactresults in the highest levels of satisfaction.

62 The 2002 Witness Satisfaction SurveyIII found that 39 per cent of victim witnesseshad contact with Victim Support and, of these, 83 per cent were satisfied (Ref. 25).However, the sample surveyed involves only those who had been called to giveevidence in court and is not reflective of the full population of victims and witnesses.

If you are in a state and you don’t know what to expect and you’re also working you’re not always going to phone. Whereas if I’d had a telephone call saying ‘you havebeen a victim, is there anything they can do to help’, then you’re more inclined to takeup the offer.

Victim, post-case interview


I Burglary with entry, robbery, sexualincidents, assaults and threats.

II Allowing for non�recorded incidents, thistranslates to an estimated contact rate of29 per cent for BCS comparable offences,compared with a referral estimate fromVictim Support of 45 per cent.

III Sample from witnesses in crown andmagistrates’ courts.

I’ve got nothing but praise for VictimSupport. I don’t think they’ll everunderstand how much they actuallyhelped me. It’s being able to talk tosomeone about it you know?...theywere a tower of strength right the waythrough the whole case.

Victim, post-case interview

Exhibit 13Percentage of those having contact with Victim Supportrating it ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ helpfulEighty per cent of victims who had face to face contact with Victim

Support found it ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ helpful.

64 Where cases are referred to Victim Support, people are generally positive about theservice they receive. However, the referral process from the police is inconsistent. Themajority of cases are not referred to any support agency and non-victim witnesses tocrime are very rarely offered support. If victims and witnesses disengage from thesystem or the case does not proceed to charge, there are no support mechanisms inplace to pick up any ongoing emotional or practical needs that they may have.

65 In 2002/03, total Home Office funding to Victim Support was £29.3 million. Thiscomprised a block grant of £26 million for the provision of Victim Support’scommunity-based service and the Witness Service, a £2 million fund for increasedsupport to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and £1.3 million for additionalsupport to victims of street crime.I The National Audit Office (NAO) review of VictimSupport (Ref. 24) conducted in 2002 stated:

The continuing challenge for both the Home Office and Victim Support is to ensurethat victims and witnesses have reasonable access to these services, irrespective ofwhere they live, in particular that services are made accessible to those victims ofunreported crime and defence witnesses who would like it

With regard to performance management, the NAO concluded :

the Home Office needs to clarify its specification of its priorities for Victim Support andstrengthen its arrangements for monitoring the level and quality of service deliveredand the financial sustainability of Victim Support.

The Government’s national victim and witness strategy (Ref. 3) sets out acommitment to devolve the Witness Service funding to all LCJB areas by 2005/06.


��

,��

:��

=�7��

3��*��

��*��

��C��6��C*��6��7*��

!�� %�� (�� )�� '�� #�� $�� "��

Source: 1998 BCS (Ref. 23)

I In conjunction with the Street CrimeInitiative.

66 Financial devolvement is based on the premise that resources should be linked withperformance at the point closest to service delivery. Devolvement can offeropportunities to use alternative service providers. For devolved funding to beeffective, there must be clear lines of accountability in place, strong corporategovernance arrangements, well developed performance management frameworksand a set of service and quality standards in place. Our study of LCJBs Local CriminalJustice Boards – Supporting Change Management (July 2003) (Ref. 37) highlightedthat LCJBs are non-statutory partnerships with accountability being made complexdue to multiple accountabilities of the individual partners.

67 Alternative models for ensuring strong accountability for performance and ensuringthat local Victim Support services continue to develop and maintain high satisfactionratings from all victims are set in Box A. Whichever model is chosen, a critical successfactor would be the role of the local authority chief executive in exercising theirstatutory duty under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998.

Box ATitleAlternative 1 – Devolve Home Office funding for Victim Support charity to LCJBsAdvantages• helps LCJBs to deliver confidence framework objectives to assess victim and

witness support services and implement an action plan for improvement

• LCJBs have freedom to contract services locally

• 42 LCJB areas similar to 49 Victim Support regional structure helps in terms ofadministration and communications

• Victim Support has a chance to influence the LCJB decision making and becomepart of the solution

Disadvantages• LCJBs are non-statutory and still in early development

• issues of accountability and corporate governance would have to be resolved

• there is little evidence of pooled budgeting by LCJBs – devolvement could bepremature

• Independence of Victim Support as a charity could be compromised

• unclear how the crucial links with Local Authorities and CDRPs would take place

Alternative 2 – Local Authority and CDRP to be given duty for victim and witnesssupportAdvantages• Local Authority chief executive takes lead role for victims and witnesses in

statutory CDRPs

• accountability and governance frameworks are already developed

• linking victim and witness support services to CDRPs gives access to crimereduction partners and close links with the crime reduction agenda


• local authority and CDRP has access to Area Based initiative funding which isconcerned with dealing with causes of crime and disorder

• Victim Support branches are already actively working with CDRPs and providepolice with local intelligence in relation to crime hotspots and low level harassment

• mainstream local authority services in housing, social services and education alreadyinclude victim and witness care and work to tackle causes of antisocial behaviour

Disadvantages• there could be insufficient linkage to the work of LCJBs where most of the

dissatisfaction with process arises

• potential for fragmentation – over 350 CDRPs

• CPS are not ordinarily CDRP members so loss of direct contact would have to bemanaged separately or through LCJBs

Alternative 3 – Keep funding Victim Support nationally, introduce robustperformance management framework and give Victim Support a place on theLCJB as ‘critical friend’ representing all victim groupsAdvantages• Victim Support could be lead agency for local voluntary sector so ensuring a more

diverse representation

• robust performance framework would provide baseline assessment andintelligence which can be used as basis for future devolvement

• could be a first step towards evolving to other models

• ‘critical friend’ role offers challenge and expert assistance to LCJBs as theydevelop and implement their victim and witness action plans

• retaining charitable commitment of volunteers

Disadvantages• value for money through option to contract locally would still have to be tested

• all voluntary sector partners may not wish to be represented by Victim Support

Alternative 4 – Police as lead agency for victim and witness careAdvantages• Victim care is a core element of police activity – fits with duties of the police

• Victim Support staff are generally located in police premises and are seen as partof the police processes

• links to CDRPs already in place

• single point of contact which is operational 24 hours a day

Disadvantages• would only cover crime victims

• potential to be disconnected from local authority crime reduction agenda

• another mechanism to link with health service would be needed

• Antisocial behaviour issues would have to be picked up elsewhere



68 An important part of meeting the emotional and practical needs of victims andwitnesses is ensuring that they feel informed and empowered about their case. Theway in which timely and appropriate information is communicated is therefore crucialto ensuring that victims and witnesses feel that they are an important part of theprocess and that they want to stay engaged.

Information and communication69 Satisfaction with information provided by the police is low (Table 2). Large gaps in

activity and information provision following a report of a crime lead to victims andwitnesses feeling that their case is not being progressed and is not consideredimportant enough to investigate properly. MORI research found that while initialexperiences at the reporting stage are generally positive, post-incident informationprovision by the police is less consistent. Only one-quarter of both victims andwitnesses surveyed for this project agreed that they were kept well informed aboutwhat was happening during their case.

70 Most victims and witnesses expect to hear something after an initial report – even ifthere is little progress to communicate. A lack of contact is often perceived as a lackof action. Where progress is made with the case, at the bare minimum, victims andwitnesses want to be kept informed about key decisions and milestones during theircase, including:

• whether a suspect has been arrested and charged;

• how they are going to plead;

• if the case is going to trial – and if so, where and when;

• whether they will be required to give evidence;

• what the outcome is likely to be; and

• bail and conditions of bail.

71 In the majority of cases, information of this type is provided by the police criminal justiceunit (CJU) or equivalent. The focus of these units tends to be on warning witnesseswhere and when to attend court, this is generally done via a standard computer-generated letter. The MORI research found criticism about the lack ofpersonal contact experienced by many victims and witnesses after the initial reportingstage, particularly from those who were ‘nervous’ or ‘concerned’ about attending court.I


The police were polite, helpful,understanding. They took a statementand everything seemed fine. I had a callfrom the police two days after theincident. They explained that thesuspect was going to court on anumber of offences. After that I heardnothing at all. I didn’t pursue the police,but I did expect to hear more aboutwhat happened.

Victim of crime, pre-case interview

I think it would have been nice to havepre-empted in terms of a phone call, itwould have been more personal,because you don’t hear anything for awhile…I think they need to looktowards customer service really – tohave a letter and find yourself going tocourt, well, I didn’t feel adequatelyprepared.

Witness, post-case interview

I See Exhibit 11, page 27.

72 However, other victims and witnesses, particularly those of less serious crimes, andthose who were ‘confident’ or ‘unworried’ about attending court, felt that letters werean effective and appropriate way of conveying information, and were suitablyunobtrusive. This shows the importance of a tailored approach to victim and witnesscare (Case study 7). Furthermore, reactions cannot be presumed; an outwardlyconfident person can be highly anxious about attending court, while a shy introvertcan make the calmest, most credible witness.

Case study 7Northumbria PoliceTo improve information provision to, and contact with, both victims and witnesses,Northumbria Police recently introduced a victim/witness database that enables allvictims and witnesses to be updated at every stage of the case by letter, telephone,text or email (the choice is theirs).


73 According to the MORI research, those victims and witnesses who were mostsatisfied with the service they received tended to be those who had liaised with oneofficer throughout, building up trust and a relationship with them. Many of those whodid not feel the need for regular contact nevertheless appreciated having a contactnumber that they could call for information if required (Case study 8).

Case study 8Metropolitan Police’s Victim Focus DeskIn November 2003, Southwark Basic Command Unit (BCU) launched the country’sfirst cross-agency Victim Focus Desk, bringing together police, Victim Support andthe Southwark Mediation Service. The aim of this desk is to provide an enhancedservice to all victims of crime in Southwark (adhering to a ‘victim first’ principle) and,ultimately, to increase public confidence in the police.

The roles of the Victim Focus Desk include:

• providing a single point of contact for victims;

• contacting all victims of crime by telephone, providing an update on theinvestigation and the crime reference number;

• explaining why an investigation has failed or cannot be continued;

• contacting officers and directing them to victims if necessary;

• offering crime prevention advice and arranging visits from home beat officers,Police Community Safety Officers, or community wardens (where appropriate);

• making an instant referral to a Victim Support worker based in the same office;

• referring victims to specialist support for race, domestic and homophobic crimes;

• referring victims to the Southwark Mediation Service if appropriate;

• offering a free lock-fitting service to all vulnerable victims of crime; and

• providing personal alarms.


They kept phoning up and leavingmessages with our reception ‘would Iphone X police station’…it was notappreciated because it’s a fairly largebuilding I work in and it took about 30 seconds for the rumours to start.”


The desk aims to contact 95 per cent of victims of crime within two days. There arealso satisfaction targets (80 per cent of victims very or fairly satisfied with the servicereceived) and an annual target to reduce the fear of crime in the borough. The cost tothe police of running the desk has been projected at £170,000 for 2003/04, rising to£241,000 in 2004/05. This is being met by the BCU Commander’s fund, with VictimSupport and the Mediation Service funded by a separate project until 2004/05.


74 How CJUs (or their equivalent) and their staff are configured varies greatly; increasingly,they include both police and CPS staff. The information that the units are able to passon to victims and witnesses will only be as timely and reliable as the information theyreceive from other police departments and other agencies. Effective communication,with and between the agencies and the victims/witnesses is thus fundamental toinformation exchange. Fieldwork found that agencies are unsure what limitations thecurrent data protection legislation places upon information sharing – interpretations ofthe legislation vary widely. The Government is tackling this in part through the CriminalJustice Information Technology (CJIT) programmeI (Case study 9).

75 Historically, the CPS provided information that enabled the police to inform victims ofany decision to drop or alter charges substantially. Under the Direct Contact withVictims (DCV) initiative (a key element of the CPS’s approach to improving its serviceto victims and witnesses), the CPS assumes this responsibility. The DCV schemerequires the decision-making lawyer to provide a written explanation to all identifiablevictims when a charge is discontinued or significantly altered. In the most seriouscases, the victims should be offered a face-to-face meeting with the lawyer. Manyareas have established a dedicated Victim Information Bureau, where caseworkersdraft letters on behalf of lawyers.

76 MORI research for this project found that involvement with CPS solicitors andbarristers was the element of the CJS with which victims and witnesses were leastsatisfied. Frequently mentioned was a lack of contact prior to the hearing and thesubsequent unfamiliarity of solicitors with the case (Case study 10). This led to a lackof confidence in the quality of advocacy being received. Some witnesses also felt thatthey were not treated with respect or were ignored altogether.

Case study 10Contact with CPSThe witness’s first and only contact with the CPS was ‘five minutes’ before the casestarted. At this contact, the CPS lawyer told the witness that he had only been giventhe case file earlier than morning. Just after the start of the hearing, the magistratethrew the case out at the request of the defence because the prosecution had notestablished the case properly. Evidence that the witness had provided to the CPS hadnot been used.



Case study 9Warwickshire Victimand Witness InformationPartnership The CJIT programme is funding apilot initiative in Warwickshire thatwill bring all of the key agencies(police, CPS, probation, Yots, VictimSupport, Witness Service, domesticviolence and antisocial behaviourorder (ASBO) co-ordinators)together in one building. Theservice, known as the Victim andWitness Information Partnership(VIP), will offer a more proactive,one-stop-shop service to victimsand witnesses, 12 hours a dayMonday to Friday and 8 hours onSaturdays.


I Improving IT and information sharing,including a secure email initiative, by theend of 2005.

Key messages and recommendations1. Many crimes do not merit proactive investigation, given that resources arestretched and the likelihood of ever identifying the perpetrator is slim. Thisperpetuates the impression that the police do not take crime seriously and maybelittle victims’ and witnesses’ experiences.

Training for police officers and staff lacks an emphasis on victim and witnesscare, which may lead to inappropriate treatment from the outset of a crime reportand impact negatively on overall satisfaction with, and confidence in, the CJS.

Recommendations• Police need to manage victims’ and witnesses’ expectations about what they will

and will not do in response to a report of crime.

• All police staff who come into contact with victims and witnesses, including frontcounter staff, call handlers and response officers should receive initial andrefresher training in customer care and diversity issues.

• Customer care should be reflected in the competencies of staff in victim/witnesscontact roles.

2. A ‘one size fits all’ approach to victim and witness care fails to take account ofdiffering needs. Early risk and needs assessment of victims and witnesses ispoor in most cases, which often leads to a lack of appropriate support at a timewhen victims and witnesses may feel very disempowered.

Victims who are referred to Victim Support are generally positive about theservice that they receive, but the referral process is inconsistent, the majority ofcases are not referred to any support agency and non-victim witnesses to crimeare very rarely offered support.

Local authorities and CDRPs have a critical role to play in victim and witness care.

If victims and witnesses disengage from the system or if the case does notproceed to charge, no support mechanisms are in place to pick up any ongoingemotional or practical needs they may have.

Recommendations• LCJBs, in partnership with CDRPs, should conduct a local review of current

support provision to victims and witnesses to identify gaps and to accessresources for targeted support from a range of agencies.

• Identifying the broad characteristics of victims and witnesses, and tailoring supportaccordingly, will lead to a better targeted and more cost effective approach.

• Clearly defined service standards for Victim Support should exist at national andlocal levels, and service provision and value for money should be monitored byLCJBs as part of a comprehensive framework for managing the delivery ofservices to victims and witnesses.

• Once a baseline and robust set of information is in place, a new model of localservice provision can be introduced within the context of a national framework.


Local authorities, CDRPs and LCJBs should have clear duties andaccountabilities within this new model.

3. Poor communication with, and information for, victims and witnesses leads toa lack of confidence, a risk of disengagement and a reluctance to go through theprocess again.

The responsibility of agencies for communicating with victims and witnesses ateach stage of the process is not always clear. Where more robust systems are inplace for communicating with victims and witnesses, such systems are oftenstandardised and impersonal.

Recommendations• Better up-front communication between police and victims and witnesses is likely

to save time in dealing with enquiries further down the line and will improve thesatisfaction levels of victims and witnesses.

• Even where there are long periods of inactivity, while a case remains open, policeshould maintain contact with victims and witnesses.

• Where possible, the police and/or the CPS should configure resources to provide a single point of contact for victims and witnesses from report to court.

• Victims and witnesses should be asked what information they would like and inwhat format and these requirements should be met where feasible.

4. Agencies are unsure what limitations data protection legislation places oninformation sharing, and the handover of information between agencies can bepoor. Greater co-operation between the statutory and voluntary agencies inexchanging information is essential in order to improve the quality of servicethat victims and witnesses receive.

Recommendations• Protocols for information sharing and referral should be developed further to

ensure that all relevant agencies are involved and that all victims and witnessesare included.I

• The upgrading of CJS IT infrastructure should be used as an opportunity forbreaking down cultural barriers to information sharing.

5. The CPS has a low public profile, which makes it seem out of touch to thegeneral public. Victims and witnesses have little, if any, engagement with the CPSprior to court, in contrast to the profile of the defence solicitor/barrister role.

Recommendations• Greater visibility of the CPS is needed to improve victims’ and witnesses’

perceptions of the level and quality of advocacy they receive.

• The CPS should be fully involved in local strategies to assess victim and witnessrisk and need, learning from the victim and witness care pilots.II

• Consideration should be given to the inclusion of the CPS in local partnerships,such as CDRPs.


I The Association of Chief Police Officers(ACPO) and Victim Support havedeveloped a victim referral agreement thatensures that victims’ details are passedbetween the relevant agencies in a waythat is data protection compliant, whilegiving victims the opportunity to say if theydo not wish their information to be passedon. Currently, however, this agreementdoes not include the CPS, and does notextend to non�victim witnesses. Morerobust protocols need to be in place toensure that such witnesses are getting thesupport they need and are referred to theWitness Service in the event of beingcalled to give evidence at court.

II The CPS and the Office of Public ServicesReform (OPSR) are undertaking a projectto identify the changes needed to improvethe provision of services to victims andwitnesses and to develop operationalmodels to deliver this improvement. Pilotswill develop local approaches to needsand risk assessment of individualwitnesses, putting in place dedicatedmulti�agency witness care teams tomanage their needs and to provide asingle point of contact. Enhanced levels ofinformation will be provided throughout,using LCJBs to ensure a partnershipapproach to victim and witness care. Thepilots will provide appropriate training torelevant staff, and local communityengagement exercises will be run in eachof the pilot areas.

4

At court and afterwardsAttending court can be a daunting and intimidating

prospect for many witnesses. The criminal justice

agencies must understand and respond to witnesses’

fears and anxieties about the court environment and

procedures and ensure that they are given the practical

and emotional support that they need to go to court

and present their evidence.

Victims and witnesses | At court and afterwards40

77 The preceding chapter contested the ‘one size fits all’ approach to victim and witnesscare. Successfully meeting an individual’s needs increases the possibility that they willremain involved with the system as a victim or witness, as well as securing ‘best’evidence. This chapter examines the key issues for victims and witnesses associatedwith attending court and afterwards, looking at how, through better-quality services,victims’ and witnesses’ experiences of the CJS can be improved.

78 Anxiety levels increase as victims and witnesses approach the point where attendingcourt becomes a reality for them. For people who have never attended court, theprospect of doing so and giving evidence is often a daunting and intimidating one.Those who have some previous experience tend to be less concerned. Theadversarial nature of the court process will necessarily make a trial an experience ofconflict. However, too often the approach of some in the CJS is to treat witnesses as auseful commodity and not as individuals.

79 Although the data suggest that seeing a case through to a conclusion is likely toincrease overall satisfaction with, and confidence in, the CJS, around two-thirds ofwitnesses are still likely to be concerned about attending court (Ref. 25). The mainconcern (24 per cent) is meeting or seeing the defendant, but other causes of anxietyinclude:

• the pressure of their evidence being necessary to bring an offender to justice;

• conversely, the feeling that their evidence may be unnecessary or irrelevant; and

• cross-examination by lawyers, and fear about the use of legal jargon, failure ofmemory, or being disbelieved or not taken seriously.

80 The MORI Omnibus (Ref. 8) found that:

• only 19 per cent of victims and 35 per cent of witnesses thought that theirevidence had helped to bring a criminal to justice;

• the majority of both victims and witnesses felt that they had been treated withrespect by the police, but were ambivalent about their treatment by the courts;

• 44 per cent of victims felt that their engagement with the CJS had been aworthwhile use of their time; and

• 58 per cent of witnesses attending court would be prepared to be a witness againin a similar situation.

81 Ensuring that more victims and witnesses feel that they are a valued and importantpart of the system is fundamental to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of thejudicial process. In order to do this, courts and partner agencies must address thefollowing issues:

• meeting the expectations of victims and witnesses;

• supporting witnesses to attend court; and

• supporting victims and witnesses after court.

Supporting victims and witnesses | At court and afterwards 41

Don’t let witnesses get in the way of agood trial.

CJS practitioner

Meeting the expectations of victims andwitnesses

82 The 2002 Witness Satisfaction Survey (Ref. 25) found that four out of five victims andprosecution witnesses were fairly or very satisfied with their treatment within the CJS.Witnesses who were also victims were less satisfied (71 per cent against 82 per centof all prosecution witnesses). Despite the high level of overall satisfaction, 60 per centof victims and witnesses surveyed had concerns about attending court and nearlyone-half of all witnesses admitted to being intimidated by either the process itself orby someone associated with the process. Victims’ and witnesses’ expectations aboutthe court experience vary considerably and are influenced by such factors as gender,age, exposure to media and prior experience.

83 Timely, accurate and useful information is key to managing witnesses’ expectationsabout the court process. In response to this need, victims and witnesses now haveaccess to information leaflets and packs, and real or ‘virtual reality’ tours of courts.I

These are obviously having an impact, with 90 per cent of magistrates’ court usersreporting that the quality of information and assistance was satisfactory or very good(Ref. 26) and 57 per cent of witnesses being given the opportunity to visit a courtroom before giving evidence (Ref. 25).

84 Victims and witnesses have expectations not just about the case, but also about theoutcome. Fieldwork showed that courts often perform badly in terms of providing theresults of court cases to the police and victims, with long backlogs and an over-relianceon paper-based systems, rather than email use between agencies. Sometimes the courtproduces and hands over the information on time, but there is then a delay in passingthis information on to the victim or witness. Whichever agency is at fault, the net result isthe same – victims and witnesses are left feeling devalued and disempowered.

85 Furthermore, victim and witness satisfaction is closely aligned with the outcome of thecase and their expectations and understanding of the result must therefore bemanaged (Case study 11). For example, victims need to understand that the courtmay only find and make an award of compensation within the means of thedefendant. Negative perceptions of outcomes will impact not only on victims’ andwitnesses’ satisfaction with the CJS, but also on the confidence of their friends,families and acquaintances – potentially a sizeable pool of people.

86 The provision of information is essential in managing witnesses’ expectations.However, many other potential barriers exist, both logistical and psychological, thatmay prevent or discourage witnesses from attending court. CJS agencies must worktogether to overcome these.

Supporting victims and witnesses | At court and afterwards42

I don’t really know an awful lot aboutthe courts – this is the first thing that’sever happened to me apart from goingto court with my divorce, so I don’treally know the court system at all.


All you’ve ever seen of court roomthings are reports on the news ordramatisations. Particularly inAmerican things, I think they tend to goin for more shouting and yelling inAmerican courts.


I didn’t have a clue…I have never beento court so I didn’t know what toexpect.


I Virtual reality tours via the internet at:www.cjsonline.org/virtual/victims/launch_victims.html

Case study 11Robert’s storyRobert suffered months of noise nuisance and harassment from his neighbours,which culminated in him being assaulted in front of his children. Having reported thematter to the police, Robert received good support from his local Antisocial BehaviourUnit (ASBU), and speaks highly of his local police beat officer. The ASBU installed adiscreet camera to help record any acts of intimidation, and he was fully informed ofthe legal action being taken.

As a result of this proactivity, the case went to court. Robert acted as a witness, butfound it a very negative experience. He says that after a difficult trial, during which thedefence solicitor made him ‘look like a fool’, his neighbour was fined and was orderedto pay Robert only a small amount of compensation. He feels that this result does notaddress the fear, intimidation and anxiety he suffered. Robert is now disillusioned withthe whole process and says he would not go through it again, as he feels the courts donot do enough to protect victims.

SSoouurrccee:: TPAS (Ref. 15)

Supporting witnesses to attend court 87 In the main, the MORI survey found that victims and witnesses felt that they had been

given enough time to prepare for court following notification. The greater frustration andanxiety comes from adjournments, sometimes multiple, and often at short notice. Thesplit responsibility between police and the CPS for witness warning can cause problemswhen changes are made to trials (for example, at pre-trial reviews) – and these problemscan also extend to notifying and ensuring the availability of professional witnesses.Guidance has been issued to LCJBs and CJS agencies on the improvements needed tokeep witnesses informed about, and engaged with, a case (Box D).I

Box DWitness Availability and the Witness Warning Process

The guidance sets out the general requirements for communication with witnesses, frominitial report through to case disposal and final contact. Key actions for LCJBs include:

• updating or establishing local protocols for witness warning, including clearmanagement control;

• defining the roles and responsibilities of each agency and ensuring that systemsand staff are customer focused;

• developing a strategy for CJS agencies’ communication with, and provision ofinformation to, witnesses;

• monitoring the implementation of protocols and taking remedial action; and

• considering training needs and the scope for joint training.

SSoouurrccee:: www.cjsonline.gov.uk/library/pdf/18865_witness_guidance.pdf


I June 2003, Home Office.

88 Assuming that witnesses receive sufficient warning to attend court, they may then find that trials are delayed or adjourned. This not only inconveniences witnesses, butcan also cause emotional upheaval and lower their satisfaction with and confidence inthe system.

89 One reason for such delay is defendants ‘missing without good cause’, which mayresult in the court issuing an arrest warrant.I Due to the additional workload that arrestwarrants mean for the police, many fail to be executed. Thousands are currently‘written off’ by the courts every year when the probability of successful prosecutionbecomes unlikely. However, there is currently no national picture, and only a partiallocal picture, of how many arrest warrants remain outstanding. While warrants areoutstanding, witnesses are effectively ‘in limbo’ until the defendant is caught and anew date set. If a warrant is written off, the witness may never be notified of this.

90 In the first quarter of 2003, 22 per cent of the 14,718 cases listed for trial in the crowncourt did not go ahead on the day, and around one-quarter of these (5 per cent of alltrials, or around 740 cases) stalled because a prosecution witness failed to attendcourt.II However, there is still a poor level of understanding about why this mayhappen. Practitioners frequently blame intimidation, but other reasons include a lackof confidence in the system, logistical barriers to attendance, or witnesses’ fear thatthey will not remember their evidence or will not be believed.

91 Many practical and administrative hurdles face witnesses who are required to attendcourt. For example, travelling to court is a problem for many victims and witnesses,especially those living in rural or deprived communities, because of the cost or lack ofpublic transport. Travelling costs are generally paid up front by the witness andclaimed back after court, which may in particular deter (or even prevent) low-incomewitnesses from getting to court. Additionally, cases may be moved between courts indifferent towns at little notice, and even on the day itself. Where this happens, only themost vulnerable witnesses are likely to receive support in meeting the logistical andemotional demands of travel to a new venue.

92 Furthermore, in many cases, although witnesses can recoup some of the extra coststhey incur through attending court, e.g. childcare, subsistence and loss of earnings,many do not know this. They also cannot claim for the travel costs of friends orrelatives to support them unless the court agrees they must be there.III Defencewitnesses should be given an expense claim form by the defence advocate, but theWitness Satisfaction Survey (Ref. 25) shows that this is less likely to happen than forprosecution witnesses.

My husband [a co-witness] is a contractor and he’s lost out on a lot of money becausethey only pay the basic amount…we’ve been adjourned twice, we’ve lost money andwe really feel like saying ‘well we don’t want to turn up for a third time.’



I had one [police officer] ring me andsay ‘it’s my rest day and I’m going toAscot’ and I’m like ‘well that’s not reallyimportant because I’ve got a witnesson the phone crying her eyes out’. Theydon’t seem to recognise what we do.

Staff in witness warning role

I felt physically sick…I’m frightenedthey will make me look like the one whohas done wrong. I feel more worked upabout it as time has gone on, I keepthinking that this time next week it willall be over and done with but then I geta phone call saying it has beenpostponed.

‘Very vulnerable’ victim

I Empowers the police to arrest absenteedefendant and bring them before thecourt.

II Ineffective trials delivery group.

III www.cjsonline.gov.uk/citizen/witnesses/court_expenses.html

93 Once at court, witnesses surveyed by MORI generally had very few criticisms aboutthe nature of court facilities, due, in part, to the low (or in some cases, complete lackof) expectations held. However, many felt that the court, its locale and facilities allowor even encourage intimidation and this was a key concern for many witnesses.

94 Most incidents of reported intimidation took place in communal areas, such ascorridors, cafes and toilets. Although 83 per cent of witnesses recently surveyed saidthat they were kept in a room that was separate to the defendant (Ref. 24), the MORIsurvey found that ‘segregation’ of victims and defendants sometimes only meantsitting on opposite sides of the waiting room. Many also felt that the court atmospherewas too informal, and would have preferred greater distance from the opposing sideduring the trial.

95 No-smoking policies within court buildings now mean that all types of courts user,including staff, witnesses, defendants and their associates tend to congregate aroundthe entrance of the court building to smoke. This not only adds to the stress andpotential intimidation of those witnesses wishing to smoke, it may also add to thereluctance of witnesses arriving to enter the court.

96 Fieldwork uncovered a tendency for courts to find barriers to improving the physicalenvironment of the court (for example, a court’s listed building status) rather thanlooking for opportunities to improve it. Many courts are old buildings, which can makemodifications more difficult, but some areas have found that these barriers can beovercome with greater flexibility and co-operation over the use of floor and officespace, and through capital investment in improvement projects (for example, toensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Ref. 27)). In someareas, better use of assets to provide improved witness care is proving beneficial (forexample, the new witness suite in Portsmouth’s Crown House).

97 The majority of victims and witnesses are provided with support with 81 per cent of allwitnesses in court having had contact with Witness Service (Ref. 25). The WitnessService, based in all magistrates’ and crown courts from April 2001 is provided as partof the £29 million grant allocated to Victim Support. While four out of five victims andwitnesses are satisfied with the Witness Service overall (Ref. 25), the funding is notseparately identified, so there is little sense of ‘value for money’. Box E, overleaf,describes the shortfalls in support experienced by victims and witnesses.


They were hanging around in thecorridors. I mean I wouldn’t even go tothe toilet, I was too scared…I didn’texpect like all the family and theirfriends to be there, but I found that allthe comments and insulting remarksthat were thrown to me and my family,nothing whatsoever was done about it,even though I reported it.


Box EShortfalls experienced by victims and witnesses whileattending court and afterwards


98 The Witness Service is not a core CJS agency and our fieldwork revealed that this canpresent a problem in terms of information sharing. CJS agencies need to be moreopen and share information with the Witness Service so that they can do their jobproperly. A consequence of this is that witnesses can present themselves to court forthe first time to find that they and their circumstances are unknown to Witness Servicestaff. This creates unnecessary anxiety and prevents the Witness Service from makingtimely arrangements to support more vulnerable witnesses. CJS agencies thereforeneed to be more aware of the information needs of the witness service.

99 The Witness Service has a basic service specification and a code of practiceConsequently, our fieldwork found that there are differing interpretations of role andresponsibility, highlighting the need for consistent monitoring. Chester Crown Courtprovides a service which adopts a more holistic approach (Case study 12).

Case study 12Chester Crown Court Witness ServiceThe Witness Service in Chester Crown Court has been running since 1994. The Servicenow has a dedicated volunteer pool and has developed its role beyond support andadvice into a ‘holistic’ witness management approach. Volunteers see around 2,500victims and witnesses annually; only around 10 per cent of these are defence witnesses.Volunteers and CPS staff meet at the beginning of each day to confirm the number andnames of witnesses due to attend. On arrival at court, all witnesses (includingprofessional witnesses) are directed to the Witness Service desk, so that the WitnessService is aware if anyone fails to attend. Volunteers provide the court ushers with a daily‘batting list’ and ensure that the relevant witness is present in court at the right time.


• Transport to/from court

• Arranging childcare

• Taking time off work

• Obtaining food and refreshments

• Reviewing statements prior to givingevidence

• Advice on claiming expenses/compensation

• Prior knowledge of court room andprocedures

• Protection from offender, friends andfamily

• Timely notification of court results

• Referrals to appropriate supportservices after court

There were a couple of women in thewaiting room who gave me a cup of teaand so on, ticked me off a list and toldme where to sit.


The roles fulfilled by the Witness Service in Chester Crown Court include:

• greeting people on arrival;

• ensuring that people re-read their statements in private before giving evidenceand, if required, assisting them with this task;

• notifying the CPS if a victim or witness wishes to change their statement;

• providing pre-hearing/trial visits into a courtroom;

• explaining court procedure;

• keeping the witness advised of the reason for and nature of any delay;

• segregating witnesses heard by the court from witnesses still to give evidence;

• preventing intimidation of victims and witnesses;

• providing a post-evidence recovery area, with emotional support if required;

• referring witnesses on to other specialist support agencies, for example, RapeCrisis; and

• providing a ‘court result hotline’ telephone service to victims, witnesses andpolice officers.


100 Encouragingly, the CJS agencies are starting to change processes so that they bettermeet the needs of the victim or witness (for example, the setting up of domesticviolence courts). However, there is still a failure to recognise the ‘spectrum’ ofemotions and needs that exists among witnesses, and the consequent flexibility ofapproach that is necessary to meet these needs (Box F).

Box FAttitudes towards court

Type Example attitude

‘Very vulnerable’ I’m living in fear here….I’m just scared I’ll go blank in the court and she [the defendant] knew it.

‘Nervous’ Dubious, nervous and in two minds about doing it. The guy I’m going up against has got a bit of a reputation round here so I’m hoping nothing happens afterwards.

‘Unconcerned’ I see it as pretty straightforward. I’m not worried or concerned about it. I just don’t want to have to take any time off work.

‘Confident’ It was a sense of, if you like, duty. And also, in a strange sense, curiosity.

SSoouurrccee:: MORI


101 For example, the needs of defence witnesses are poorly understood and consideredcompared to those of prosecution witnesses. Defence witnesses attend court in muchlower numbers and tend to be either professional witnesses, for example, providingscientific or health evidence, or character witnesses. While they are less likely to haveconcerns about attending court, according to the 2002 Witness Satisfaction Survey(Ref. 25), defence witnesses are:

• less likely to receive information;

• less likely to have contact with the Witness Service;

• less likely to receive an advance warning letter;

• less likely to have a pre-court visit; and

• more likely to have to wait to give evidence.

102 Many victims and witnesses in the CJS are highly vulnerable, for example, throughyouth, infirmity, psychological problems or close relationship to a perpetrator of crime.Reforms introduced by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Ref. 28)address the need for special measures to support vulnerable victims and witnesses asthey travel through the CJS and to reduce the number who are unwilling to attendcourt (Box G).

103 Effective implementation of special measures to support vulnerable victims andwitnesses is currently mixed. Early identification of vulnerability by police and CPS isweak in many areas, which can lead to a lack of information provided to courts and afailure to apply for special measures sufficiently in advance of a trial. No single agencyhas overall responsibility for special measures, which means that eligibility is notalways identified. The Witness Service also needs to be alerted to vulnerablewitnesses to ensure that they are given appropriate support, both before and at court.In 2002/03, the Witness Service identified 16,701 vulnerable or intimidated witnessesthat had not been identified as such by the police and CPS. Victim Support iscurrently in the process of negotiating a national protocol with the relevant agenciesfor referral of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to the Witness Service.

So, if we know [for example, about deaf witnesses] it saves them the embarrassmenton the day. And we can at least eliminate that part of the stress for them.

Staff in witness warning role

104 Fieldwork for this study found that some practitioners remain unconvinced of thebenefits of special measures to support vulnerable victims and witnesses, forexample, evidence provided in court via television link or on video tape. Conversely,others are strongly supportive, pointing to increasing levels of special measuresapplications to local courts in justification. Evidence from witnesses suggests that theuse of special measures is highly beneficial to some, but that others prefer to confrontthe offender in court, or to gain ‘closure’ from the court experience.


Box GSpecial measuresThe Youth Justice and CriminalEvidence Act 1999 (Ref. 28)provides some protection towitnesses following an applicationto a court. The ‘special measures’that a court may approve areavailable to vulnerable, young orintimidated witnesses. Thesemeasures include giving evidenceby way of a video link or behindscreens, removing wigs and gownsor clearing the court. Under theAct, which was implemented inJuly 2002, both the police and CPSstaff are required to conduct a riskassessment of the needs ofwitnesses. This should informwhether an application is made tothe judge for the provision ofspecial measures.

SSoouurrccee:: Streets Ahead (Ref. 29)

I don’t think I should have had to see him at all… I felt intimidated when he was there,just waiting and the court case had to be adjourned…because I was shaking so much.I had to take a tranquilliser and I went in and then I was blank.

Domestic violence survivor (Ref. 30)

105 The rate of applications to courts for special measures for victims and witnesses isincreasing, but there are concerns on the ground that these measures may be beingoffered inappropriately. In the absence of a broader range of options to addressdiffering types of vulnerability, there is a risk of over-reliance on this kind of high-costsupport. Better risk assessment could help to identify more tailored and cost-effectivesupport to meet individual needs.

106 Children are disproportionately more likely to be victims of crime – the MORI youthsurvey 2003 (Ref. 31) found that 54 per cent of all pupils had been a victim of crime inthe last year, and the BCS reports that young people are at a four-fold greater risk ofbeing a victim of crime. However, courts are frequently not child-friendlyenvironments. A survey of young offenders and parents showed that the main barriersto understanding the court process were the formality, the intimidating environmentand difficulty understanding the language (Ref. 32). It is reasonable to expect thatsimilar difficulties are likely to be experienced by young victims and witnesses. In the2002 Witness Satisfaction Survey (Ref. 25), only one-third of child witnessesremembered receiving the Young Witness PackI and only one-quarter said they hadany contact with a Child Witness Liaison Officer.

107 MORI research found that where victims and witnesses were not in court to hear theoutcome of a trial, this information sometimes did not subsequently get passed on,particularly in cases of more minor crime. The pre-case ‘divide’ between the way inwhich the police tend to handle serious and less serious crime can be seen tocontinue through to post-case experiences.

I tried to get in contact with the magistrates afterwards and I just couldn’t getanywhere. I tried directory enquiries and they were giving the same number which wascoming up as non-existent. So in the end I gave up. So I was quite pleased when your[MORI’s] letter came because I thought this isn’t right, there’s no support afterwards,there’s no-one to contact.


I definitely think something needs to be sorted out with the result, you know, findingout the outcome. Hopefully for us we’re trying to sort out our little bit, but we wouldappreciate help from the police and the CPS in doing that.

Witness Service

108 For many victims and witnesses, the need for support and information does not endwith the outcome of the case. Yet for most, this is when the duty of care on the CJSagencies ends, and any further help must be sought through the voluntary sector.


My son witnessed everything, he wasten years old, they wouldn’t take him,they said they couldn’t put him on thestand because he was my son, he wasalways going to be on my side, hedoesn’t know what’s really going on,he’s a child. What I don’t like is the waythey treated him. They didn’t take hisexperience, what he said seriouslybecause of his age and his mentaldisability.

Domestic violence survivor (Ref. 33)

We were treated quite young actually. I know I’m only 17, but because legallyI’m under 18 it felt a bit funny becausethey treated us the same as an 8 yearold would be.


I Relaunched in 1998 by the CJ agencies,ChildLine and the NSPCC.

Supporting victims and witnesses aftercourt

109 Reform of the probation service under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act2000 (Ref. 34) included the creation of a post-court victim care role. From April 2001,Section 69 of the Act placed a statutory duty upon the probation service to consultand notify victims of violent or sexual offences about final release arrangements ofoffenders sentenced to 12 months or more. National standards were revised in 2002(Ref. 35), requiring probation areas to:

• make a written offer of face-to-face contact with the victim within eight weeks ofsentence;

• provide information to victims (or family) about the criminal justice process andkeep them informed if they wish;

• allow victims (or family) to give views on proposed conditions surrounding theoffender’s release;

• inform the victim (or family) of any conditions of release that relate to them; and

• ensure that any information relating to victims (or family) is kept secure andseparate from offender’s case record.

110 Home Office data show that in 2001, 7,702 offenders were sentenced to 12 months ormore in custody, for violent or sexual offences – less that 1 per cent of all offendersfound guilty or cautioned (Ref. 5).I Monitoring by the probation service during thisperiod found that 15,041 victims met the criteria for post-sentence contact – almosttwice the number of offenders (Ref. 35), but still only a very small proportion of thetotal number of victims passing through the CJS.

111 The Witness Satisfaction Survey (Ref. 25) showed that 26 per cent of people surveyedsaid that they were provided with information about post-court support. Of thoseeligible for support by the probation service, 80 per cent of victims were contacted bythe probation service within 8 weeks of sentencing, and 23 of the 42 probation areasexceeded the National Probation Service target of 85 per cent (Ref. 36). The figuresindicate good performance by the probation service in making contact, with aroundone-half of victims subsequently taking up the offer of support.

112 Victims of serious crime interviewed by MORI reported a mixed picture; while somereported having their opinions sought and taken into account by the probationservice, some felt they had been ‘abandoned’ after the initial contact, others reportednot having been approached at all. Being involved in the release conditions was ofparticular importance to those who had been subjected to intimidation; others justwanted to know when the offender would be released. Fieldwork suggested thatvictims often find that the prison service is more willing to provide information aboutwhen and to where an offender will be released.


I Excluding summary motoring offences.

They are going to let me know when he’sgetting out, and then I’ll be able to setthings like, he won’t be allowed in to mystreet or to come within a radius of me.


113 For a number of victims, however, while the offer of help was a welcome one, this wasnot subsequently followed through. Some were not aware that they could be involvedin setting post-sentence conditions and others found it difficult to get the informationthey required about release dates.

We were told that before he was released we would be informed…but we’ve neverheard a thing. Now she told us he was coming out in the spring...I mean we found a lotmore out through the newspaper to be honest.


114 The new Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) guidance issued bythe National Probation Directorate (NPD) makes detailed reference to the duty of careto victims.I It also broadens the probation service’s public protection role by requiringit to consider the needs of potential victims and recognise the importance ofinformation from victims in the ongoing risk assessment of offenders.

115 Despite these positive steps, there is still room for improvement. At a national level,recent guidance from the NPD on releasing personal information dealscomprehensively with an offender’s rights under the European Convention on HumanRights, but it fails to balance this need with that of the victim. Practitioners voicedconcerns about the barriers to information sharing between the agencies, and aboutthe consequent lack of joined-up and timely information about an offender’s sentencebeing available to victims and witnesses.

116 The extent and nature of the post-court support that most victims and witnesses needis currently unclear. Evidence from fieldwork indicates that many more victims couldbenefit from post-sentence support than are currently eligible; for example, victims ofdomestic burglary and victims of domestic violence. Although more research isnecessary to discover the full extent of potentially unmet demand for post-courtsupport from victims of crime, simple courtesies towards victims and witnesses maybe sufficient for many individuals to feel more valued.

117 The statutory duty represents the legal minimum that must be offered by the probationservice. It does not, in theory, limit the discretion of local boards to offer such supportin other cases if they feel it is needed (for example, in cases of domestic burglary).However, this is constrained by available probation resources, and the reality is thatfew boards currently have the capacity to deliver above and beyond the statutoryminimum. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) reported in 2003 on athematic inspection of national victim contact arrangements. Key recommendationsfor the NPD are set out in Box H.


Box HValuing the Victim• Develop new national standards

for victim contact work.

• Develop and implement anational strategy to ensure thatstaff are appropriately trained forvictim work.

• Consider taking explicit accountof victim contact work in thecash limit allocation formula.

• Progress the development of aworkload monitoring tool forvictim contact work.

• Provide guidance to ensureconsistent monitoring andevaluation of victim contactwork.

• Develop a standard assessmentframework for victim liaisonofficers to use when workingwith victims.

• Facilitate good communicationwith other organisationsinvolved in victim work.

• Ensure that all victims haveequal access to contact andaddress specific needs of thosefrom minority groups.

SSoouurrccee:: HMIP (Ref. 35)

I www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/MAPPA%20Guidance.pdf

Key messages and recommendations1. There is a tension between supporting victims and witnesses through a courtcase and the adversarial nature of a trial. Many witnesses have no idea what toexpect in court and perceptions are often based on media and dramatic portrayals.

Many also perceive that the current culture of the court is not one that respondsto witness needs and demands as readily as it does to those of courtprofessionals and the defence.

Recommendations• Witnesses’ expectations must be better managed by the police and the CPS,

including the experience of court, and being realistic about the outcome and whatwill happen afterwards.

• Supporting witnesses should not be over-prescriptive and should always beproportionate to the need of the witness concerned.

• Better marketing of actual and virtual tours of courts – and inclusion of such tourson the new citizenship curriculum in schools – will help to raise awareness andunderstanding about how the courts operate.

2. Logistical and psychological barriers to attending court have implicationsboth in terms of the likelihood of victims and witnesses staying involved andtheir overall feelings of satisfaction.

Recommendations• Early risk assessment of witnesses is essential to ensure that agencies

understand where they sit on the ‘spectrum’ of need and can therefore meet theirpractical and emotional needs to attend court.

• Courts need to work with the Witness Service to minimise any behavioural andenvironmental factors that may encourage intimidation at court.

3. A sense of ‘civic duty’ still underpins many people’s willingness to act as awitness. A lack of respect for witnesses and a failure to acknowledge theimportance of their contribution may be their most enduring memory of the CJS.

Recommendations• Protocols should be developed for acknowledging the contribution of witnesses,

including ensuring that decisions are explained in court and that explanations areprovided when a case fails to proceed for any reason.

• Responsibility must be agreed at a local level for notifying both victims andwitnesses of court results and for answering any questions that they may have.

Victims and witnesses | At court and afterwards52

4. Post-sentence support is only routinely available to a very small minority ofvictims and there is a lack of recognition of the ongoing needs of many victimsand witnesses post-court.

Recommendations• LCJBs should look for local solutions to allow ongoing support to be offered to

victims and witnesses who are not eligible under the current criteria.

• Police, the probation service and the prison service need to work more closely tomeet the requirement to provide victims and witnesses with timely and accurateinformation about an offender’s whereabouts and planned release.

• The NPD, in conjunction with LCJBs, should implement HMIP’srecommendations for improving victim contact arrangements.

Victims and witnesses | At court and afterwards 53

5

Victims and witnesses | Chapter title54

The way aheadImproving services to victims and witnesses requires

commitment and action from Government, local

partnerships, the criminal justice agencies, local

authorities and the voluntary sector. By working together

and focusing on the needs of victims and witnesses, all

the agencies involved will be better placed to provide

such people with the support they want, when and how

they want it.

Supporting victims and witnesses | The way ahead 55

118 Greater public confidence in the CJS is a key objective of the Government, but the CJSagencies cannot achieve this goal alone. The national and local contexts that govern howCJS agencies work contain ambitious – and sometimes conflicting – demands. Ourresearch has identified six common themes that span the whole victim/witness pathway:

• Agencies must understand the demand for services from victims and witnesses inorder to respond appropriately and effectively.

• There must be cultural change to recognise that meeting people’s needs is key toimproving victim and witness satisfaction.

• Clear accountability for performance and service quality is essential to driveimprovement.

• Better use and communication of information is critical to keeping victims andwitnesses engaged.

• Appropriate and timely support is critical to ensure that victims and witnessesstay engaged.

• Agencies can achieve significant change by using existing local resources in amore co-ordinated way.

119 The Government’s national strategy for victims and witnesses (Ref. 3), alongside otherframework documents, was introduced to provide a basis for improving the support forvictims and witnesses. The challenge for leaders is to champion and deliver a culturechange that will support a truly user-focused approach to victim and witness care.

120 National action should include setting common goals for government departments,with associated service standards and performance targets for agencies. Local actionshould focus on better services that make victims and witnesses feel that they are animportant and valued part of the process. Local multi-agency partnerships alreadyexist that form a good starting point for achieving this; for example, CDRPs, Yots andLCJBs. Critical to improvement is a shared local vision of victim and witness care,with clarity about who is responsible for action. Because local capacity to improve willvary widely, our research suggests that the following overarching levers forimprovement are necessary:

• all CJS and crime reduction partners should design services around victim andwitness needs;

• national targets need to be explicit with regard to victim and witness care. Theyshould apply to local authorities, CDRPs and the criminal justice system so thatwhole system improvement is achieved;

• activity based management accounting should be introduced across the CJS andcrime reduction agencies;

• LCJBs need to be given a statutory basis to support greater devolvement ofresources and freedoms to lead service improvements involving CDRPs and Yots;

• strategic regulation of LCJBs should be designed and delivered jointly by CJSregulators, with a high emphasis on user focus and the effective use of resources;

• CDRPs must broaden their analysis to include incident reporting and non-reporting;

• performance improvement frameworks being developed for CDRPs should besupported by joint inspection processes and public reporting of performanceagainst their crime reduction strategies;

• the performance of local authorities relating to their duties under the Crime andDisorder Act (Ref. 12) and their effectiveness in providing integrated support toCDRPs and LCJBs should be incorporated into CPA; and

• Yots should support LCJBs in their work with victims of youth crime (Ref. 37).

121 Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the agencies within the CJS is the need to seevictims and witnesses not only as critical to their performance, but also as valuedstakeholders, whose differing needs must be recognised and supported. At all stagesof the pathway, therefore, a tailored approach is needed. The over-riding aim ofcollaboration between local authorities, CJS agencies and partnerships should be tomake places safer for people, with incidents dealt with in a co-ordinated and timelyway by the agency that is best placed to respond. Such collaboration should alsounderpin the development of longer-term solutions to local problems of lowconfidence and the under-reporting of incidents.

122 The following table (Table 3) translates the above aims into an improvement checklist.Recent and ongoing initiatives by Government and others are referenced, but are notan exhaustive list and are not in themselves the whole solution. The checklist issupported by a separate self-assessment tool for collective use by local CJS andother agencies to take stock, plan and prioritise service improvements.

Victims and witnesses | The way ahead56

Table 3Improvement checklist

Priority areas for improvement Who? Examples of current initiatives

Theme: Understand the demand for services from victims and witnesses

There is an understanding of who victims and witnesses are; how, why All agenciesand where they need to engage with local agencies.

The general public are reassured that when they report an incident, their LCJBs, localconcerns are addressed irrespective of the severity. authorities, police

There is agreement on accountability and prioritisation for responding to Police, CDRPs ASB Unit work to identify types reports of disorderly and antisocial behaviour. of ASB

Information systems capture, analyse and share incident and Police, CDRPsvictimisation data.

Access to, and the variety of, reporting methods better meets the needs Police, CDRPsof local people.

Shared call handling and reporting facilities provide a basis for greater Police, Police call-handling projects;cost efficiency and consistent service quality. local authorities local initiatives

The principles of the police NIM are used to target and co-ordinate Police, CDRPs,responses to disorderly and antisocial behaviour. local authorities

Victims and witnesses | The way ahead 57


Theme: Cultural change to recognise that meeting people’s individual needs is key to improving victim and witness satisfaction

Changes in agency culture are led by local champions. LCJBs, CDRPs, all agencies

Customer care is reflected in the competencies and performance LCJBs, all agencies, Home Office police serviceappraisal systems of all staff with victim and witness contact roles. regulators standards initiative; police

probationer training

Staff receive regular refresher training that ensures consistently high All agenciesstandards of user-focused services.

Staff training for those with a remit for victim and witness care includes an All agencies Police probationerexplanation of all local agency roles, responsibilities and service standards. training

Theme: Clear accountability for performance and service quality to drive improvement

All statutory agencies with a remit for victim and witness care are included Government Confidence frameworkin the Government’s strategy for improving confidence in the CJS. departments

National and local Performance Indicators (PIs) are based on victim and Government Confidence framework; Policingwitness expectations of satisfactory outcomes. departments, CJS Performance Assessment

agencies, CDRPs Framework (PPAF); BVPIs

An over-arching performance management framework based on Government Confidence framework; PPAF;national service standards and performance indicators holds all agencies departments, BVPIs; Victims and Witnessesto account, within both public and voluntary sectors. regulators Bill

Local agencies are clear about key improvement issues, and for each LCJBs, CDRPsissue, a local lead agency is responsible.

Regulators incorporate victim and witness care in inspection frameworks. Regulators HMIP thematic Valuing the Victim (Ref. 35)

Service standards are aligned between the agencies, meaningful, Government Office of Public Services Reformaccessible and based on local capacity to deliver departments, (OPSR) work on citizen-focused

all agencies public services

Theme: Better use and communication of information

Information is recognised as critical to the performance of agencies and CJS agencies, CPS/OPSR Victim and Witnessto the satisfaction of victims and witnesses. local authorities Care Project; Direct Contact

with Victims (DCV) project

Information is provided at all stages of a case, from initial report through Police, CPS CPS/OPSR Victim and Witnessto case disposal and post-sentence. Care Project; CJS Online

‘Victims’ Virtual Walkthrough’

There is a readily-accessible, case-managed approach or single point of Police, CPScontact for victims and witnesses.

Victims and witnesses | The way ahead58


Theme: Better use and communication of information (continued)

Communication at the right time, with the right information, in the right All agencies CPS/OPSR Victim and Witnessway, meets the individual needs of victims and witnesses. Care Project

Realistic and timely information is used to manage victims’ and CJS agencies Central Office of Information/witnesses’ expectations throughout a case. Home Office work on

revising leaflets

Information sharing between agencies and the voluntary sector CJS agencies, Victim Criminal Justice IT initiative;facilitates the progress of a case and efficient handover. Support, voluntary CJS Online

sector

Theme: Appropriate and timely support ensures that victims and witnesses stay engaged

Early risk assessment of all victims and witnesses identifies individual Police, CPS CPS/OPSR Victim and Witnesssupport needs. Care Project

Greater procurement of victim and witness services more closely meets Government National Strategy for Victimslocal needs. departments and Witnesses

Better monitoring and evaluation of local initiatives identifies what support LCJBsworks and when.

‘One size fits all’ services are replaced by services that are designed to fit LCJBs CPS/OPSR Victim and Witnessindividual victim and witness needs more closely. Care Project

A better understanding is developed of the local capacity and potential LCJBs, Police,to deliver better services to victims and witnesses. CPS

There is better post-sentence support for vulnerable victims and LCJBswitnesses not eligible under the current probation service criteria.

Theme: Agencies achieve significant change by using existing local resources in a more co-ordinated way

National and regional funding streams relating to victim and witness care Governmentare mapped and streamlined departments, LCJBs,

CDRPs

The strategies and activities of CJS and CDRP partners are mapped to Governmentidentify and remove gaps and duplication. departments

There is greater co-ordination of projects that use area-based funding LCJBs, CDRPs, localto improve victim and witness care. strategic partnerships

Management accounting systems are capable of tracking the cost of Regulatorsvictim and witness support throughout the CJS pathway.

The effective use of resources is built into the performance management Governmentframeworks and regulation of local CJS and CDRP partners. departments, regulators

References1 Home Office, Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003, Home Office 2003.

2 Government Home Office, Respect and Responsibility – Taking a Stand Against Anti-social Behaviour, The Stationery Office, 2003.

3 Home Office, A New Deal for Victims and Witnesses: National Strategy to DeliverImproved Services, Home Office 2003.

4 Audit Commission, Route to Justice: Improving the Pathway of Offenders Through theCriminal Justice System, Audit Commission, 2002.

5 Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2001, Home Office 2002.

6 Home Office, Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002, Home Office, 2003.

7 Home Office, Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume, Home Office, 2003.

8 MORI/Audit Commission, Experiences of the Criminal Justice System – Victims andWitnesses of Crime, MORI, 2003.

9 Home Office, Justice For All: Criminal Justice White Paper, The Stationery Office,2002.

10 Criminal Justice System, Improving Public Satisfaction and Confidence in the CriminalJustice System, CJS, 2003.

11 J Nixon, Tackling Anti-social Behaviour in Mixed Tenure Areas, ODPM, 2003.

12 Home Office, Crime and Disorder Act, HMSO, 1998.

13 Home Office, Anti-social Behaviour Bill, HMSO, 2003.

14 HMIC/Home Office/Audit Commisison/LGA/Ofsted/SSI, Calling Time on Crime,HMIC, 2000.

15 Audit Commission, Trust in the Public Sector, Audit Commission, 2003.

16 TPAS/Audit Commission, Report on Witness Survey, unpublished, 2003.

17 Home Office, Tackling Witness Intimidation – an Outline Strategy, Home Office, 2003.

18 A Tseloni, K Pease, British Journal of Criminology: Volume 43, 2003.

19 HMCPSI/HMIC, A Report on the Joint Inspection into the Investigation andProsecution of Cases Involving Allegations of Rape, HMCPSI/HMIC, 2002.

20 Home Office, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, HMSO, 1988.

21 J Tapley, From Good Citizen to Deserving Client, unpublished PhD thesis, 2003.

22 J N Van Kesteren, P Mayhew & P Nieuwbeerta, Criminal Victimisation in SeventeenIndustrialised Countries: Key-findings from the 2000 International Crime VictimsSurvey, The Hague, Ministry of Justice, WODC, 2000.

23 Home Office, Research Findings no. 177: Victim Support: Findings from the 1998British Crime Survey, Home Office, 2000.

Victims and witnesses | References 59

Victims and witnesses | References60

24 National Audit Office, Helping Victims and Witnesses: the Work of Victim Support, TheStationery Office, 2002.

25 Home Office, RDS OLR1903 – Findings from the Witness Satisfaction Survey 2002,Home Office, 2002.

26 HMMCSI, Annual Report 2001-2002, Stationery Office, 2002.

27 Department for Work and Pensions, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, StationeryOffice, 1995.

28 Home Office, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, HMSO, 1999.

29 HMIC/Ofsted/SSI/HMCPSI/HMMCSI/Court Service/HMI Prisons/HMIP, StreetsAhead: A joint Inspection of the Street Crime Initiative, Home Office, 2003.

30 Standing Together, Survivors Speak: A Report on the Findings of Consultation withSurvivors of Domestic Violence 2001-2002, Standing Together, 2002.

31 Youth Justice Board/MORI, Youth Survey 2003, YJB, 2003.

32 BMRB/Audit Commission, Experiences of the Youth Justice System: Parents’ &Young Offenders’ Views, unpublished, 2003.

33 Standing Together, Heard and Not Judged: Consultation with Survivors of DomesticViolence in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, 2002-03, StandingTogether, 2003.

34 Home Office, Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, HMSO, 2000.

35 HMIP, Valuing the Victim: An Inspection into National Victim Contact Arrangements,Home Office, 2003.

36 National Probation Service, Performance Report 8: Year Ending 2002/03, NPS, 2003.

37 Audit Commission, Local Criminal Justice Boards: Supporting Change Management,Audit Commission, 2003.

GlossaryABI Area Based InitiativeACPO Association of Chief Police OfficersASB Antisocial BehaviourASBO Antisocial Behaviour OrderASBU Antisocial Behaviour UnitBCS British Crime SurveyBVPI Best Value Performance IndicatorCARRO Community and Race Relations OfficerCDRP Crime and Disorder Reduction PartnershipCJIT Criminal Justice Information TechnologyCJS Criminal Justice SystemCJU Criminal Justice UnitCPA Comprehensive Performance AssessmentCPS Crown Prosecution ServiceDAT Drug Action TeamDCA Department for Constitutional AffairsDCV Direct Contact with VictimsFAQS Frequently Asked QuestionsLA Local AuthorityLCJB Local Criminal Justice BoardLWC Leicester Witness CocoonHMCPSI Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service InspectorateHMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of ConstabularyHMIP Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of ProbationHMMCSI Her Majesty’s Magistrates’ Court Service InspectorateMAPPA Multi Agency Public Protection ArrangementsMPS Metropolitan Police ServiceNAO National Audit OfficeNIM National Intelligence ModelNPD National Probation DirectorateNPS National Probation ServiceODPM Office of the Deputy Prime MinisterOPSR Office of Public Services ReformPACE Police and Criminal Evidence ActPBV Police Best Value IndicatorPI Performance IndicatorPLO Police Liason OfficerPNC Police National ComputerPPAF Policing Performance Assessment FrameworkPSA Public Service AgreementREC Race Equality CouncilTPAS Tenants’ Participation Advisory ServiceVIB Victims’ Information BureauVIP Victim and Witness Information PartnershipWSS Witness Satisfaction SurveyWSU Witness Support UnitYot Youth Offending Team

Victims and witnesses | Glossary 61

Appendix 1:research methodologyFieldwork for the project was conducted in four criminal justice areas – Hampshireand the Isle of Wight, Thames Valley, Avon and Somerset and North Wales. Researchinvolved:

• structured interviews with staff in CJS agencies, Victim Support and other localstakeholders, such as the judiciary, magistracy and Race Equality Councils;

• reviews of key local documents and protocols; and

• observations in crown and magistrates’ courts.

Other research included:

• investigating ‘notable’ local practice;

• a survey of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships;

• a telephone survey of 65 local authorities to ascertain response to antisocialbehaviour queries.

The Commission contracted MORI Social Research Institute to undertake two keyareas of research:

• an Omnibus poll of nearly 2,000 people; and

• qualitative research with victims and witnesses in three police and three probationareas across the country.

In addition, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) was commissioned tosurvey and interview social housing tenants who had experienced antisocialbehaviour.

Research was carried out by Jeanette York, Georgina Barnes and Sean Quiggin of theAudit Commission, and was overseen by Sharon Gernon-Booth.

An advisory group comprising senior practitioners from CJS agencies, the voluntary andhousing sectors, as well as representation from the magistracy, inspectorates and theHome Office provided the study team with professional insight and practical advice.

The Commission is grateful to all the individuals, agencies and organisations that co-operated with and contributed to both the research and report, and for thehospitality of the fieldwork areas visited. Responsibility for the conclusions andrecommendations in this report rest with the Audit Commission alone.

Victims and witnesses | Appendix 162

Local Criminal Justice Boards: Supporting ChangeManagement

Drawing on the experiences of three case studyBoards, this report identifies the key challenges theyface, as well as providing strategies to address them.

Management Paper, 2003, ISBN 186240450X, £25, Stock code LMP3045

Community Safety: Learning from Audit, Inspectionand Research

This report identifies how effective leadership and aclear focus on a limited number of priorities will enablemulti-agency partnerships to provide safeneighbourhoods for local people.

2002, ISBN 1862403775, £18, Stock code LLI2785

Route to Justice: Improving the Pathway ofOffenders through the Criminal Justice System

This national report describes the path of four adultoffenders through the criminal justice system,highlighting where system inefficiencies and failuresoccur and how these might be improved.

National Report, 2002, ISBN1862403651, £25, Stock code LNR2762,

Safety in Numbers: Promoting Community Safety

The Crime and Disorder Act has made communitysafety a top priority for local government, as well as forother public agencies. This topical report tracks thedevelopment of the Act and calls for local partnershipsto get local delivery right. Highlighting best practice, itsuggests how all the agencies involved can improvejoint working to tackle the problems.

National Report, 1999, ISBN 1862401314, £20, Stock Code LNR1311

Misspent Youth ‘99: The Challenge for YouthJustice

This update reports on the results of an audit exercisethat took place in the second half of 1998 in Englandand Wales. The audit assessed improvements in localcriminal justice agencies and the progress that stillneeds to be made.

Update, 1999, ISBN 1862401586, £10, Stock Code LUP1331

To order further copies of this report, priced £25, please

contact Audit Commission Publications, PO Box 99, Wetherby,

LS23 7JA, 0800 502030.

In addition you can order a four-page briefing and a one-page

summary, both of which are free.

All of these formats are available on our website at

www.audit-commission.gov.uk. Our website also contains a

searchable version of this report.

Price £25Stock code: LAR3127

Audit Commission1 Vincent Square, London SW1P 2PNTelephone: 020 7828 1212 Fax: 020 7976 6187Textphone (minicom): 020 7630 0421www.audit-commission.gov.uk

Victims and Witnesses - College of...

Documents

Transcript of Victims and Witnesses - College of...